What an institution, if ever I was proud to be British it would be now.....we have a universal healthcare, regardless how rich or poor you are, you are human....and will be treated as such....my highest respect goes out to the British NHS....alight in a dark world.

If it was so good, why does the government threaten us with prison time if we refuse to pay for it?

I think it's a hideous institution. Something so monolithic cannot be efficient. The amount you pay is determined by how productive you are and not how well you look after your health. The level of service you get is determined by bureaucrats and not by how much you've contributed to society. Plus there's little incentive to bring costs down or improve service.

It creates a set of incentives which mirrors the appalling set of incentives that have destroyed this country.

The NHS is the best part of living in the UK. Healthcare for all and especially for people that have no money. Sure it has its problems but with such a huge organisation its expected. I'm sure there could be more positive changes to cut out money wasting but its one of the few British institutions still worth keeping.

People often give out about having to pay into it but they are usually the ones who have money to pay for private health care and don't give a damn about their fellow citizens. That's just selfish and arrogant on their part.

Living abroad I know what its like not to have a NHS and the costs involved should you get sick. Ireland is one place that if you get sick just to get into the Dr its around EUR50 and thats without your medication . Getting the flu can often set you back EUR130.

Like all health-care systems, it has it's flaws, strengths, weaknesses, if it was being started today it would be done differently. But it was set up in 1948, when an elected government, with one of the most solid mandates in British electoral history (in both seats in the Commons and share of the vote), did what they said they would do.
Don't see much of that now do we?

They did so after surmounting fierce opposition from the medical establishment (or at least those who ran it, being for the proposed system did not make doctors popular with the upper management). However, while concessions were made for consultants and their private practice, what really tipped the scales were the results of polling that showed just how popular the idea of the system was with the public and therefore also showing just how much the scare tactics by the medical establishment had fallen on deaf ears.
Listen to the people and not vested interest and lobby groups? Yes, it really did happen!

Prime Minister Attlee knew how to run a Cabinet and knew how to delegate. He let Health Secretary Nye Bevan get on with the job. Yes, PM's did used to do that!
Bevan, a MP for a poor Welsh mining community, had before the war, set up local co-operatives in his constituency to provide basic health care, funded via members of the community paying in a levy to provide for them and their families when the need arose.
This he extended into the National Insurance system for the NHS.

All this in run down, war damaged, worn out, financially stricken Britain.
Still, the original ideas for the NHS and more besides, had come from the Wartime report from Liberal Peer Lord Beveridge, his report on post war measures to end the appalling poverty, lack of health care, housing and other social ills that so blighted inter war Britain, was a best seller when published mid way through the war when victory was still not assured.
It was a sort of contract with the people, keep fighting, keep toiling, endure the wartime privations, in return there would not be a return to the conditions endured after WW1 had ended and which were still a bitter memory for many.

My parents as children had known what it is to have family members suffer health problems but not have to money to even see a doctor.
There were millions like them.

Ironically, it was the implementation of very minor charges for some services, like glasses and dentures, brought in to fund the rearmament for the UK contribution to the Korean War in 1950 and other defence commitments, that caused a fissure in the now exhausted government (most had been in senior positions in the wartime Coalition since 1940 too), which led to their defeat in 1951. Though they still got more votes just less seats in Parliament.

I point this out since inevitably this thread will attract comments, mostly from across the pond, about 'socialists, commies' etc. Yeah, what a red government Attlee's was.
Let's see, second largest commitment after the US to Korea, same with the Berlin Airlift, a leading light in the formation of NATO, was fighting Soviet influence across the globe for the first couple of post war year while the US de-mobilised, leading to the only time conscription was re-introduced outside of a world war in 1947, (the Marshall Plan came out of warnings that the UK government could not afford all of these commitments and much of Europe still might fall under Stalin's influence yet).
This government also started the UK nuclear bomb program after the US ended agreements on Atomic technology and threw the sizable UK scientific contribution to the Manhattan Project out of the country.

Worth noting that while recently we heard much about how Thatcher changed to political weather, made changes that the opposition had to in broad terms accept, the same was even more true in 1951. The Tories had not only to accept the NHS which they had opposed, (a reason Churchill lost in 1945, despite the huge affection for him was his opposition to the idea of a NHS), as my Dad said of him 'he was a great war leader but bloody useless in peacetime', they also had to commit to maintaining and improving it, if they wanted to get re-elected.
Pragmatism and reality over dogma, I bet the current Tory PM wishes he could, on for example Europe, have that same power over his fractious party now.

Do changes, evolution, have to be a part of running the NHS now? Of course, despite some saying otherwise, this has been the case for it's whole history. Do I trust the current government with it? Not entirely.
However, the one PM who would have deep down liked to have ended it, despite what was said in public, was Thatcher but even at the height of her powers she knew she could not and still stay in power for long.

Because that's the reality of it, the idea of a health system free at the point of use, funded from taxation and national insurance, is as uncontroversial in the UK as say votes for women.

My own experience with it, especially since being diagnosed in 2000 with a serious condition, has been very positive.
I only have to worry about looking after myself, taking the medical advice, not if I can afford the range of medication that keeps me relatively healthy, which means I have always kept on working and therefore paying my tax and National Insurance which funds the NHS.
I believe that is called a virtuous circle!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 4):What's more selfish, earning money yourself to pay for something, or stealing it from someone else to pay for it?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 4):What's more selfish, earning money yourself to pay for something, or stealing it from someone else to pay for it?

You know I don't think it's the latter.

Then stand for political office, UKIP will have you, (just wait until their policies really come under scrutiny).
I read an interview with one of them, a swivel eyed loony of a farmer who said almost exactly what you keep banging on about though he was a bit stuck when asked abut health care provision. (Who would also have been happily taking those various EU subsidies that help keep him in business. Mr Farage himself loves his EU Parliament expenses and several of their MEP's have been done for benefit fraud, one went to jail for defrauding the British social security system).

The society to seem to desire, does exist in places, Somalia for example. Off you trot there then, see how long you last. If not, why not? Live by your strong convictions. I dare you.
You might want to consider the notion that 'taxation is the price we pay for a civilised society'.

If you are ever unlucky enough to need that institution you call 'hideous', a medical emergency that the private sector cannot and will not provide (that is anything serious and/or sudden), you will I take it refuse it, if you are able to?
Even a very wealthy person which private provision of the best kind, will need the NHS if in a bad car crash, or a sudden event like a stroke, or heart attack.

Your profile shows you as still a young person, you might feel it now, but you are not immortal or superman.
You'll need the NHS at some time in your life, actually if you've been born and brought up here you already have done so, plenty of times.

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):My own experience with it, especially since being diagnosed in 2000 with a serious condition, has been very positive.
I only have to worry about looking after myself, taking the medical advice, not if I can afford the range of medication that keeps me relatively healthy, which means I have always kept on working and therefore paying my tax and National Insurance which funds the NHS.
I believe that is called a virtuous circle!

Very well said. I would hate to get to a society where people just care about themselves and dont care if others die because they cant afford the medication to survive. Thank god none of those horrible individuals in my circle of colleagues/friends and Family.

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):I point this out since inevitably this thread will attract comments, mostly from across the pond, about 'socialists, commies' etc. Yeah, what a red government Attlee's was.
Let's see, second largest commitment after the US to Korea, same with the Berlin Airlift, a leading light in the formation of NATO, was fighting Soviet influence across the globe for the first couple of post war year while the US de-mobilised, leading to the only time conscription was re-introduced outside of a world war in 1947, (the Marshall Plan came out of warnings that the UK government could not afford all of these commitments and much of Europe still might fall under Stalin's influence yet).
This government also started the UK nuclear bomb program after the US ended agreements on Atomic technology and threw the sizable UK scientific contribution to the Manhattan Project out of the country.

It looks like you're the one hoping to "attract comments from across the pond" by inciting these topic points as some sort of bait. You made the topic, and listed an entire paragraph on Britains achievements post WWII. I guess I, in reading this thread, am not sure what you are hoping for. A little pre emptive strike when nothing has been thrown out yet?

From what I understand, the NHS is not exactly 'free'. Is the government really that benevolent to provide an entirely free healthcare? I pretty much understood your citizens pay taxes towards it,, not to mention potentially other taxes on good and services (electornics, petrol/gas, imports). Maybe that new Bedroom tax which is causing issues in the UK contributes towards it as well?. As another poster mentioned, not everybody wants to pay into it, but begrudgingly do so for fear of prosecution? I"m certainly not well versed on the topic and love to hear others. I , like many other Americans, am on the fence about a national health care.

I"m guessing there are isses too as I remember a NY times article about 4 years ago on Britains having to pull their ow teeth due to a lack of NHS dental providers. Then I read this article just last week:

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 8): As another poster mentioned, not everybody wants to pay into it, but begrudgingly do so for fear of prosecution? I"m certainly not well versed on the topic and love to hear others. I , like many other Americans, am on the fence about a national health care.

Not everyone wants to pay taxes but they have to. You cant pick and choose what you pay for as part of a society otherwise it wouldnt function. Different countries have different systems and having lived in UK USA Greece and Ireland I have found the UK's NHS to be the best.

Of course there will be news reports and horror stories that one can focus on but the everyday life saving operations and people who need medication and cant afford it go un reported. Millions benefit and the NHS is a very diverse institution. My Mother was at risk of loosing her sight a few years back and the treatment she received from the NHS was second to none. Then again she paid in via taxes all her life so we were glad of the system.

There are some issues which I think need to be changed like ''tourism'' patients coming in and using the service. I believe if you are not resident in the UK then you should not be enttiled to anything other than emergency treatment unless there is a reciprocal arrangement as there is with EU states.

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):I only have to worry about looking after myself, taking the medical advice, not if I can afford the range of medication that keeps me relatively healthy, which means I have always kept on working and therefore paying my tax and National Insurance which funds the NHS.
I believe that is called a virtuous circle!

So goes the argument but why not just pay for it yourself instead of via NI and Tax. That way you're more encouraged to work harder because you're not getting so penalised and more encouraged to economise on healthcare = a better economy for everyone to enjoy.

Personally i think we should at least be able to opt out of the NHS's elective services and be paid a block of what the average per capita costs would be of you using the NHS. That way at least there would be some kind of choice to compare to. And over time everyone might choose to opt out and the NHS would disappear. Or maybe everyone would choose to keep it, who knows.

I find it very frustrating after already paying healthcare for about 5 people via tax contributions i then have to pay again if i want better healthcare. My local doctor hardly ever answers the phone. The staff are completely rude and they rarely have convenient slots for me so i end up having to take a half day if which just wastes a load more money.

The great problem with the healthcare debate is that the only country with supposedly private healthcare has made such a hash of it through various government distortions it's impossible to point to an example of how it could work better.

Of course we can't really afford the NHS any more anyway at least nowhere near the same extent, but as you point out, it's a religion over here and no political party can even touch it. And such it is basically going to finish us off.

When deciding about whether health care should be free or not, I always go back to when I was 19. I was drunk, slipped and broke my leg. Completely my fault. The Australian version of NHS, Medicare, covered it entirely; from emergency room fees, to surgery to physiotherapy. I didn't have private health insurance (neither did my parents) and if I had to pay for it myself, I probably would have had to go bankrupt. It would have cost between $5,000 to $10,000 without Medicare. (Side note... the same work would have costed between $35,000 and $50,000 in America, so the doctors said).

Before that injury, I used to always complain about paying the $500 a year out of my tax to pay for Medicare. Since it, I have absolutely no problem paying it. Why? Because no one should have to go bankrupt and/or not get medical treatment because of lack of financial ability.

I always think of a person with no insurance in America who is completely healthy, going about their day, driving along the road while it's raining and BOOM, they run their car into a tree. Not only have they lost their car, but they also have to pay the exhorbant medical fees. My heart goes out to the stories like this everyday.

I find it incomprehensible that certain countries don't have universal health care for their citizens. (Note: the keyword is citizens.... maybe something America needs to look at while structuring their health. In Australia... no proof of citizenship, credit card payment first please!)

Quoting GDB (Reply 6):Then stand for political office, UKIP will have you, (just wait until their policies really come under scrutiny).

No thanks. I'm not a big fan of UKIP though they are probably the best of a sorry bunch but not by much - they've got some pretty hideous policies of their own.

Quoting GDB (Reply 6):The society to seem to desire, does exist in places, Somalia for example. Off you trot there then, see how long you last. If not, why not? Live by your strong convictions. I dare you.
You might want to consider the notion that 'taxation is the price we pay for a civilised society'.

The society i desire is a better society for everyone which means a drastically smaller government, I likely just have a different idea on how to achieve a civilised society. (i'm not an anarchist btw, Geolibertarian if you must know, i mean i've studied the "Anarcho-capitalist" line of thought but i've concluded it would just result in a - possibly more tyrannous - government anyway)

Can you look at the state of the UK's finances and tell us our government has served us well? This country's economy is a complete basket case and we're going to embark on a very steady downward trend in our standard of living over the next 5 to 10 years - rather like what happened to Argentina.

I think the point still stands though. You can't call rich people selfish whilst the entire leftist position is based upon on theft anyway. Discuss the potential outcomes by all means but don't call it something it isn't.

I am extremely proud of the fact that I help pay for access to healthcare for everyone in the country. I am also impressed with the way they have saved the lives of both myself, and of people I know and love. I agree with the OP that it's one of the best things we have in this country, and something we do right to be proud of.

All the "let them eat cake" types can just take their selfish, greedy ways elsewhere. We should help those less fortunate than ourselves.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 13):I am extremely proud of the fact that I help pay for access to healthcare for everyone in the country. I am also impressed with the way they have saved the lives of both myself, and of people I know and love. I agree with the OP that it's one of the best things we have in this country, and something we do right to be proud of.

Indeed its not until something really goes wrong in your life that you realise how fortunate we are to have the NHS. If someone is that wealthy then they are well fit to contribute to the state system then go private. Its worked for decades and works well.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 13):All the "let them eat cake" types can just take their selfish, greedy ways elsewhere. We should help those less fortunate than ourselves.

First of all, for the life of me I can not understand how a civilized first world country, US, can not have a minimum healthcare for all it's residents. We can argue over who is entitled and who is not, but the simple fact is if you have a major health issue or accident you could be SOL!! I have friends who worked for UA/US who lost their medical coverage when they were furloughed and they were in a real bad bind. Why should a society as a whole not provide of people in that situation.

While the NHS is not perfect, it does work pretty well. As I get older my joints don't work as they used to. I have had a knuckle replaced by the NHS. I had to wait about 4 month but it was not a long time and certainly very doable. A lot of how the NHS works depends on where you live. Being fortunate to live in the S/SE of the UK, the standard of care is much higher there than it is up north.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 10):My local doctor hardly ever answers the phone. The staff are completely rude and they rarely have convenient slots for me so i end up having to take a half day if which just wastes a load more money.

How is that a NHS problem??? To me it sounds like you need to move surgeries. Our surgery has a system that if you can not get an appointment during the day, you come in after 4:30pm and you will be seen by a physician. I have used that a couple of times and have only waited maybe 15 minutes. I would certainly not blame NHS but again the local surgery and suggest you talk to the practice manager.

Anyhow, I personally am embarrassed when getting into discussions about health care in America or the lack of it. It is a crime to know there is not a basic level of medical care. My father was a physician and he always said the US should go to a national health care system. In essence it already had one. The two groups that drive health care costs are Medicare and Insurance Companies. A friend of mine who is a retired AA Captain, went into his doctor to have a hearing aid replaced. He was concerned about having to bear the cost and inquired. After some discussion, the price was going to be about $5000. The physician asked about the AA retiree's health care and my friend said he still had it but he was not sure if it would survive bankruptcy proceedings. No problem, order one now at $8000 and the insurance will pay for it at a negotiated price. Why the difference????

Just my thoughts. I know no system is perfect, but I do feel it is a disgrace there is no minimum health care coverage in the US.

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 8):It looks like you're the one hoping to "attract comments from across the pond" by inciting these topic points as some sort of bait. You made the topic, and listed an entire paragraph on Britains achievements post WWII. I guess I, in reading this thread, am not sure what you are hoping for. A little pre emptive strike when nothing has been thrown out yet?

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 8):It looks like you're the one hoping to "attract comments from across the pond" by inciting these topic points as some sort of bait. You made the topic, and listed an entire paragraph on Britains achievements post WWII. I guess I, in reading this thread, am not sure what you are hoping for. A little pre emptive strike when nothing has been thrown out yet?

From what I understand, the NHS is not exactly 'free'. Is the government really that benevolent to provide an entirely free healthcare? I pretty much understood your citizens pay taxes towards it,, not to mention potentially other taxes on good and services (electornics, petrol/gas, imports). Maybe that new Bedroom tax which is causing issues in the UK contributes towards it as well?. As another poster mentioned, not everybody wants to pay into it, but begrudgingly do so for fear of prosecution? I"m certainly not well versed on the topic and love to hear others. I , like many other Americans, am on the fence about a national health care.

On the first point, I am merely anticipating what will come and hope to provide some greater context on the government that formed it and the times they lived in.
I've seen Attlee called a 'Communist' on here before, from across the pond.
It's important I think to point this out, since we seen time again - most recently in 2009 in that US health care debate - the most outrageous nonsense spouted about the NHS and other comprehensive systems elsewhere.

On the NHS, it has always been through general taxation and more specifically, a system of National Insurance. This was made clear from the very start, indeed a leaflet circulated to every home in 1948 made it clear it was 'not a charity'.
Nothing to do with whatever the current (Conservative led Coalition) government are doing with other taxes.

Quoting mmo (Reply 15):Having lived in both countries, I would like to add my thoughts.

Why does every topic have to somehow revert to the United States? How did this topic from the OP praising how he feels the NHS has benfitted him turn into an opinion fest on the US? I mean, again. and Again. It's just funny how we're dragged in kicking and screaming. Actually, you all are doing the kicking and screaming, Americans are simply stating and defending how they think things should be run IN OUR OWN COUNTRY . Be it healthcare, or gun control. There is no one America and one consensual opinion. I think the OP knew what he was doing.

I love your sentence: "Having lived in both countries, I would like to add my thoughts." My first thought was "what is the other country and thoughs about what"? . But of course I should have guessed.

If and when things change in the US whether it gun control, abortion,, health care, gay rights, marriage equality and so on, it will be due to the will and actions of its citizens . Many things have in the course of 236 years changed due to actions by the public. I was on some UK board one time and someone said "Let's shame the US into offering healthcare to its citizens." I wanted to say "beyotch, who do you think you are?"

[soapbox alert] anywhoo, I have a flu and am up and down this evening. I just spent a good amount of time discussing on another board filled with Brits on how some british reporter had to have a translator while interviewing "the people of kentucky because he coudn't understand "them" and vice versa". Turns out it was ONE mountain woman who had a strong accent. Of course those obsessed with anything America escalated that thread into how we speak, how we spell, what side of the street we drive on,, jjaywalking, and the spelling of Aluminium vs. Alooooominum. And Don't forget nucler and that important fact that Hershey tastes like vomit and is the only chocolate available in America. Y'all need to stop this America obsession. and I do mean LOL. [/off my soapbox]

Aeri28, it could well be because people are regularly seeing Americans discussing the very same things on an extremely regular basis. Right now in another thread there is just such a debate going on, dominated by posters with US flags. Why are you surprised that others should want to discuss and compare when they read so much about it here?

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 17):Why does every topic have to somehow revert to the United States? How did this topic from the OP praising how he feels the NHS has benfitted him turn into an opinion fest on the US? I mean, again. and Again.

Well because its a prime example of how a lot of British people do not want the British system to become. Its a valid comparison. If the USA wants that system then fine its your country but we don't have to like it and it will be shown to others in the UK what the alternative is or could be. Many including myself don't like that alternative.

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 17):Be it healthcare, or gun control. There is no one America and one consensual opinion. I think the OP knew what he was doing.

Yes the USA always has opinions on EU affairs. Recently the USA's opinion was that the UK should stay in the EU and it would be weaker outside so its a case of practice what you preach. Don't complain if we have an opinion on your internal affairs also because you have been airing your views on ours for decades. Just saying !

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 10):So goes the argument but why not just pay for it yourself instead of via NI and Tax. That way you're more encouraged to work harder because you're not getting so penalised and more encouraged to economise on healthcare = a better economy for everyone to enjoy.

Personally i think we should at least be able to opt out of the NHS's elective services and be paid a block of what the average per capita costs would be of you using the NHS. That way at least there would be some kind of choice to compare to. And over time everyone might choose to opt out and the NHS would disappear. Or maybe everyone would choose to keep it, who knows.

I find it very frustrating after already paying healthcare for about 5 people via tax contributions i then have to pay again if i want better healthcare. My local doctor hardly ever answers the phone. The staff are completely rude and they rarely have convenient slots for me so i end up having to take a half day if which just wastes a load more money.

The great problem with the healthcare debate is that the only country with supposedly private health care has made such a hash of it through various government distortions it's impossible to point to an example of how it could work better.

Of course we can't really afford the NHS any more anyway at least nowhere near the same extent, but as you point out, it's a religion over here and no political party can even touch it. And such it is basically going to finish us off.

Well I cannot speak for your surgery, I've had no problem with mine, then again I don't go there thinking it's part of a 'hideous' institution.

What you are advocating is what was before. If you were born into anything than a pretty prosperous family and you fell sick, then tough shit.
The result was a deeply unhealthy society. Less productive and in 1939, when the call up to war came, so many recruits were unfit and unwell it took an inordinate amount of time to make them healthy.
If you think we have health issues today, it was far far worse before the NHS.
My parents could tell you that.

It's also time to end this myth about efficiency, I'm not picking on the US here deliberately, putting aside Medicare for the over 65's has a system the closest of which you seem to advocate, want to check the levels of GDP spent on health against outcomes?
The NHS spends a tiny fraction on non health activities for a start, there is not a vast marketing effort, the large amount of lobbying, the bureaucracy in maintaining this and the whole charging regime. People are still paying, whichever way you cut it. Those costs do impact on the patients.
Then check the average life expectancies between the two countries, on any measure, the NHS is doing pretty well.

The NHS is not a religion, it's far too pragmatic for that.
It won't sink us, you should know who might do that, those wonderful, under regulated financial industry, you do still remember what happened in 2008?
The disruptive elements of the Trade Unions from the 1950's to 1970's (another interest group like the bankers who thought that they were above society), were pussies by comparison to this lot.

The biggest area of government spending is the welfare, not the health, budget. By far.
You will have seen the rabble rousing from the Tories and their friends in the press (now you know why Cameron lied to the victims about phone hacking), about the 'shirkers' and such like.
They exist, however when you tell people that unemployment benefits are a mere 3% of welfare spending (government figures not that they like to mention it), they are shocked.
What is the rest?
Mostly pensions. Tell that to those who buy the PR effort from the government on this, especially if they are middle aged and more, that tends to give them pause for thought.

After all, they expect to get theirs, even if, as in most cases, they also have company and private schemes, since 'they paid into it'.
Another myth, as working people they are paying for the current pensions, when their time comes to get it, the current working population will be paying. Trouble is, the ratios between those two groups has been changing. More pensioners and fewer working people.
THAT is the challenge.

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 17):Why does every topic have to somehow revert to the United States? How did this topic from the OP praising how he feels the NHS has benfitted him turn into an opinion fest on the US? I mean, again. and Again. It's just funny how we're dragged in kicking and screaming. Actually, you all are doing the kicking and screaming, Americans are simply stating and defending how they think things should be run IN OUR OWN COUNTRY . Be it healthcare, or gun control. There is no one America and one consensual opinion. I think the OP knew what he was doing.

Whist i am in favour of a private healthcare solution and share the Ameican belief that healthcare is a commodity and not a right just like food and shelter. The Americans have to acknowledge that their system is (A) not free market and (B) a disaster. The American government spends a similar amount on healthcare (per head) than the UK and similar countries so it can't even be stated that it's not socialised itself.

Of course the debate shouldn't be about US vs UK because that would just be puerile nationalism, it should be about what and what does not work.

As far as i understand the 3 key distortion with healthcare system in America are...

The tax code which encourages overspend and insurance on things that simply shouldn't be insured. Additionally it needlessly ties insurance with jobs which is completely undesirable if you actually want to change jobs or be out of work.

Malpractice laws and subsequent insurance to cover malpractice - the outcomes of malpractice should all be agreed voluntarily and contractually and the government should merely enforce these contract.

Lack of insurance competition across state (or national) lines.

There are other possible issues too that i don't know in a lot of depth. Possible room for IP/Patent reforms. Also laws which deny the ability to discriminate against age and force companies to cover certain conditions.

All distortions that have no doubt been implemented in the name of good intentions and not good results.

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):What you are advocating is what was before. If you were born into anything than a pretty prosperous family and you fell sick, then tough shit.

Not really because i do believe that kids should get a chance and have funding for healthcare regardless of parental wealth. If you look at the link i posted about my political philosophy you'll notice a section about citizens dividend. Well i'd make that a citizens inheritance, so kids would have money for their their health and education and everyone would get a chance in life. Of course young people have some of the lowest healthcare costs going anyway, so in the early years when they are leaving home they should be able to afford insurance, even on a relatively (now tax free) low wage.

NB: The important thing about the above is that it's coming from a non-distortive tax which doesn't hurt the economy.

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):It won't sink us, you should know who might do that, those wonderful, under regulated financial industry, you do still remember what happened in 2008?

Nothing really to do with regulations. All to do with fiat currencies, Mr King and Mr Brown, something that came to a head in 2008 but really started in 2001. As the phrase goes, the banks got drunk but the government/central banks gave them the alcohol.

I dare say without all that we'd still be a relatively competent state even with the NHS (though it wouldn't have had as much investment during the boom years so the opinion might not be what it is as of now) never the less our reluctance to make cuts to the NHS the welfare state and other areas will finish us off. There is no serious political party in the UK that is willing to do what is right for the country and that reason is because these institutions make it politically impossible.

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):Mostly pensions. Tell that to those who buy the PR effort from the government on this, especially if they are middle aged and more, that tends to give them pause for thought.

Pensions are a big problem too and why (you guessed it) i don't believe the state should be involved. Of course the only reason the state needs to get involved in pensions at all is because it absolutely hates savers so much and is hell bent on debasing the currency. If we had sound money then saving for a pension would be easy.

You're right that pensions are a huge expenditure, and we have to raid them unfortunately. For now means test them so anyone with X amount of wealth doesn't get a pension. Harsh, but the magnitude of the country's problems are far too great.

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 17):I love your sentence: "Having lived in both countries, I would like to add my thoughts." My first thought was "what is the other country and thoughs about what"? . But of course I should have guessed.

Perhaps you should take a look at your posts! You opened the door by your uninformed posts. I suggest that I have more qualifications to speak of NHS than you do. I have lived under both systems. You, just can pick and choose about what news rag you want to quote. Yes, the Express falls into that category.

You are attempting to portray the situation here as one that reverts to the middle ages. It is far from it. If you have something worthwhile to add, please do. Other wise making offhand comments such as you do does nothing to substantiate your position. Your comments illustrate you know noting about funding of the NHS and your comments further demonstrate you have an even looser grasp of just what the NHS does. So, I would suggest before you throw stones at me, you might want to brush up on you facts..

The NHS ISN'T FREE. It's paid for via taxation. If you are from overseas and don't meet certain criteria, then you pay!

It seems only the bad news about the NHS makes it overseas.

Also when you have mis-informed and just plain dense politicians claiming that the NHS has "Death Panels"

I bet not even one of them has visited the UK or gone into a hospital.

I could say with certainty that this never made the papers overseas either...

"A recent comparative analysis of health care systems put the NHS second in a study of seven rich countries. The report put the UK health systems above those of Germany, Canada and the US; the NHS was deemed the most efficient among those health systems studied."

Yes, it does have its downsides, there are waiting lists for non critical/non life threatning operations and procedures. But if you have a dire medical emergency then the system does work.

My Uncle, had some strange blood tests results come back, within 6hrs he was at a hospital for more blood work and a body scan. He went back in the next day, and got told the news he had a form of cancer. Within 48hrs he was in surgery to remove what ever needed removing and was started on a course of chemotherapy.

Children should only be allowed on aircraft if 1. Muzzled and heavily sedated 2. Go as freight

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 17):Why does every topic have to somehow revert to the United States? How did this topic from the OP praising how he feels the NHS has benfitted him turn into an opinion fest on the US? I mean, again. and Again. It's just funny how we're dragged in kicking and screaming.

How are we being "dragged in kicking and screaming?" I'm an American and when I first read the topic I was gonna mention the US (again, as an American.) Both your posts have added little besides the fact you're mad that someone started this "inciteful thread" and someone brought the US into the discussion... it's not off topic and with a ton of Americans on this board, it's probably gonna get mentioned. And just because you disagree doesn't mean the other posters have to fall in line and not post their 2c. Suggest deletion of a post you think is inciteful or off topic

Personally, I like hearing what foreigners (everyday citizens, not politicians) have to say about their healthcare. It's a huge contrast to what I've heard all my life. I heard all the problems and very few of the pros and wondered what bozos would actually want nationalized healthcare. After hearing tons of foreigners post, it makes a lot more sense--the issue has been distorted and politicized in the US? What a surprise!

It's pretty much the same idea, although I've been told the British system is more efficient. I've never been to the UK so I can't say for myself.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 21):Whist i am in favour of a private healthcare solution and share the Ameican belief that healthcare is a commodity and not a right just like food and shelter.

How do you define what is a commodity and what is a right? I define a right as anything essential to life, and that includes healthcare.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 26):How are we being "dragged in kicking and screaming?" I'm an American and when I first read the topic I was gonna mention the US (again, as an American.) Both your posts have added little besides the fact you're mad that someone started this "inciteful thread" and someone brought the US into the discussion... it's not off topic and with a ton of Americans on this board, it's probably gonna get mentioned. And just because you disagree doesn't mean the other posters have to fall in line and not post their 2c. Suggest deletion of a post you think is inciteful or off topic

Well said. I wanted to say something but refrained from doing so; I'm glad someone did.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 26):Personally, I like hearing what foreigners (everyday citizens, not politicians) have to say about their healthcare. It's a huge contrast to what I've heard all my life. I heard all the problems and very few of the pros and wondered what bozos would actually want nationalized healthcare. After hearing tons of foreigners post, it makes a lot more sense--the issue has been distorted and politicized in the US? What a surprise!

It's amazing speaking to Americans and finding how much you guys are lied to about healthcare elsewhere, eh? Also of note is that the US is the only place where people call it "socialized medicine" as if we've had some despotic leader burden the people with such an awful system, when it's quite the contrary.

I never realised just how much NHS spending ballooned under Labour. In 1997 it was ~£50 bn (2010 adjusted) and in 2010 it had risen to £120bn. That is absolutely criminal!

Meanwhile the UK is running a deficit to the order of ~100bn and New Labour Lite (Tories) are going to add another 600bn to the debt with their nonsterity measures. All this time though they're ringfencing the NHS.

I honestly can't believe just how dumb the people who run this country are.

In fact if it had stayed at £50bn and if they let people opt out i could almost support it.

The NHS is something I am truly proud of and very happy to pay my taxes for. It's one of the few levies on my salary that I actually think is justified and for the common good.

It makes be even prouder to know that visitors to our country (be it on leisure or business) who happen to be injured can also benefit from our healthcare without having to worry about what financial burdens it will put upon them.

Sure, the NHS has its faults, frankly I think there are too many men is suits and offices and not enough doctors and nurses, but from my experience, the positive elements of the NHS far outweighs the negatives.

The system works. It could do with a little oiling here and there, but it works.

My brethren in America should not be so scared of "Obamacare". It is essentially what the NHS is and will benefit everyone in the long run.

This is something Obamacare is addressing. They intention is to set up exchanges where an individual can see all of the competitors out there and choose the plan that best suits them at a reasonable cost. This creates competition between the insurance companies something anyone who favors the free market should want.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 27):Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 1):
How does this compare to the Canadian system?

It's pretty much the same idea, although I've been told the British system is more efficient. I've never been to the UK so I can't say for myself.

Westjet747 the UK system is basically the same as the Australian one, in fact Brits can use Medicare in Australia and Aussies can use the NHS.

The differences between Canada's single payer and the NHS is that in Canada it is full single payer where I can see any doctor I please whom most have a private practice and they charge that province. Also if I need a doctor in BC they can charge Ontario for my care and vice-versa.

The biggest difference with the NHS is that if you use it the doctors, clinics and hospitals are all owned and operated by the government and the staff are government employees essentially. That is not always the case in Canada.

The other big difference is that the UK is two-tier and Brits are encouraged to also have private insurance and this allows them to go to private hospitals. While this is the case in Canada with some things like dental and prescription drugs etc. it isn't fully two-tier although there should be a debate on it.

The challenge with a two-tier system in Canada is that someone paying cash can outbid the government and the doctor will take their business thus screwing the person who doesn't have the means to do it and needs the public system, thus skipping the line.

This is not allowed in the UK because the systems are independent and the person opting for private treatment can get it taking the burden off the NHS (they are joining another line and not skipping the NHS one). Also IIRC doctors in the UK have to be in the public system for a time before becoming private physicians. In Australia I know you get a tax credit for having private insurance but I'm not sure if you get one in the UK.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 30):Because it is funded by taxes and the penalty for not paying taxes can be jail time.

I think the point has gone over your head. Why does the government have to do that? If it was so good why don't we pay for it voluntary. Just like i pay for all the other things i consider good value in my life voluntarily.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 30):In the US it would never be affordable for most middle-class families to be able to afford to get insurance. People get it through their employers because they can get a cheaper group rates.

WOT? Why would it not be affordable? if people can afford it now why would they suddenly stop if the route of paying for it changed?

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 30):This is something Obamacare is addressing. They intention is to set up exchanges where an individual can see all of the competitors out there and choose the plan that best suits them at a reasonable cost. This creates competition between the insurance companies something anyone who favors the free market should want.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 30):Also if I need a doctor in BC they can charge Ontario for my care and vice-versa.

Ontario doesn't cover the full amount. I had to see a doctor while in Montreal last year and Ontario only takes care of 70%. Good thing it was only a minor treatment so it didn't cost me too much.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 31):If it was so good why don't we pay for it voluntary. Just like i pay for all the other things i consider good value in my life voluntarily.

Surely that isn't a serious question. Obviously the answer is shortsightedness. Many people don't want to pay for something that doesn't immediately yield a realizable value. You voluntarily pay for products because you realize the value almost instantly, whereas with government services, you would pay taxes then receive no immediate benefit thus creating the illusion that "taxes are pointless". It doesn't mean that taxes don't serve an important purpose.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 31):I think the point has gone over your head. Why does the government have to do that? If it was so good why don't we pay for it voluntary.

Because people won't pay and get the most expensive treatment and rely on the state anyways which is why something like health care is so expensive in the US.

Government doesn't have to provide health care but you are the minority in Britain when it comes to this opinion and even the conservatives there don't

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 31):WOT? Why would it not be affordable? if people can afford it now why would they suddenly stop if the route of paying for it changed?

The US has 50 million uninsured people so about one in every six people can't afford care (there are some who just won't pay but I don't think that is much).

For many the unit cost is far lower if it comes out of their pay which is what employers do but employees don't see it. You probably could opt out and get the cash but at this time if you shopped around you would probably end up paying more because you are only one plan when a corporation manages thousands of them it buys in bulk.

Quoting baexecutive (Thread starter):I think it's a hideous institution. Something so monolithic cannot be efficient. The amount you pay is determined by how productive you are and not how well you look after your health. The level of service you get is determined by bureaucrats and not by how much you've contributed to society. Plus there's little incentive to bring costs down or improve service.

Move to a country where you have to pay for every little thing, a xray costs you a few grand, a check up the same, god forbid yu get hurt and spend a week in hospital and have to fork out over 100,000 USD or something.

Im sure you would change your mind.

The NHS might have its issues, but the times I have had to use it, its been there for me and helped me and treated me well.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 32):Surely that isn't a serious question. Obviously the answer is shortsightedness. Many people don't want to pay for something that doesn't immediately yield a realizable value. You voluntarily pay for products because you realize the value almost instantly, whereas with government services, you would pay taxes then receive no immediate benefit thus creating the illusion that "taxes are pointless". It doesn't mean that taxes don't serve an important purpose.

Humans aren't moths drawn to lights you know. Most people would understand the need for health insurance if there was no offering from the government. Most people manage to see the need for travel, driving, house, life insurance etc. Of course they are entitled to go without.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 33):Because people won't pay and get the most expensive treatment and rely on the state anyways which is why something like health care is so expensive in the US.

That's not a very coherant sentence. I've highlighted in reply 28 why healthcare is so expensive in the US.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 33):For many the unit cost is far lower if it comes out of their pay which is what employers do but employees don't see it. You probably could opt out and get the cash but at this time if you shopped around you would probably end up paying more because you are only one plan when a corporation manages thousands of them it buys in bulk.

Yes, but that is because of the tax code. If you removed these tax distortion, there would be no tax benefit to have insurance via an employer, people would shop individually or as a family if they wanted it and it need not be any or noticeably more expensive.

Quoting flyingthe757 (Reply 34):Move to a country where you have to pay for every little thing, a xray costs you a few grand, a check up the same, god forbid yu get hurt and spend a week in hospital and have to fork out over 100,000 USD or something.

Im sure you would change your mind.

The NHS might have its issues, but the times I have had to use it, its been there for me and helped me and treated me well.

You speak as if without the NHS there would be no market solutions to healthcare.

I'm sure i would change my mind if health insurance was banned, I would change it back if it wasn't banned though.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 35):Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 33):
Because people won't pay and get the most expensive treatment and rely on the state anyways which is why something like health care is so expensive in the US.

That's not a very coherant sentence. I've highlighted in reply 28 why healthcare is so expensive in the US.

One other reason is that many American wait and go the the ER for care which is where the treatment is the most expensive.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 35):Yes, but that is because of the tax code. If you removed these tax distortion, there would be no tax benefit to have insurance via an employer, people would shop individually or as a family if they wanted it and it need not be any or noticeably more expensive.

Fair point, but to make it affordable there still needs to be a mandate to get coverage. If there isn't you will get short sighted people who won't get coverage and that burden will shifted to the taxpayer. That is unless you would leave people to die, which is something a civilized society tries to minimize.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 32):Ontario doesn't cover the full amount. I had to see a doctor while in Montreal last year and Ontario only takes care of 70%. Good thing it was only a minor treatment so it didn't cost me too much.

Good to know, that might be a Quebec thing though as a lot of times there are rules for the other 9 provinces and then a Quebec rule .

Although with anything serious I would think they would get you back to your province ASAP.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 36):Fair point, but to make it affordable there still needs to be a mandate to get coverage.

No, there doesn't.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 36):If there isn't you will get short sighted people who won't get coverage and that burden will shifted to the taxpayer.

No, the burden shifts to their pocket or charity.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 36):That is unless you would leave people to die, which is something a civilized society tries to minimize.

Would this be a civilised society that mandates theft?

People would only die from their own stupidity - which is pretty deadly already.

Socialised care already causes many unnecessary deaths, you just don't see it because you've never seen what healthcare would be like in an environment which encouraged costs to come down and quality to go up.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 38):Show us the numbers proving that the UK system causes 'many unnecessary deaths'. I suspect you'll find it saves a hell of a lot of lives.

You won't see them because they don't exist.

Free market capitalism has a pretty brutal record of producing better quality at lower prices over communist systems however, it's therefore logical to conclude that many people have needlessly died because of the NHS.

Wow, that's so convenient, what with it meaning you can bandy around totally unsupported, wild claims about how many people the NHS must kill compared to other systems.....

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 39):Free market capitalism has a pretty brutal record of producing better quality at lower prices over communist systems however, it's therefore logical to conclude that many people have needlessly died because of the NHS.

And there's the icing on the cake - comparing the NHS to communist systems of the past (presumably with a straight face as well, though we can't see that).....absolutely hilarious. Just by the by though, what do you actually know about, say, the mainstream Soviet healthcare system? How was the pre-revolution system working out for most people? How has access to quality care improved for large numbers of people in thousands of the remoter parts of Russia since the end of the Union, or even indeed in many of the major cities? Try speaking to a few Russians and find out for yourself. Here's a hint - it's regressed massively and now totally sucks.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 38):Show us the numbers proving that the UK system causes 'many unnecessary deaths'. I suspect you'll find it saves a hell of a lot of lives.

Indeed in fact where any errors are highlighted they often change. The digital prescriptions by 2018 is another step to minimise any errors in dispensing patients medication. So in fact the NHS continues to change to save even more lives and offer a better system for all.

Even if you were the top private hospital in the world you will always sadly kill people. The NHS has saved millions of lives !

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 40):what with it meaning you can bandy around totally unsupported

Why is it unsupported? If you think it's unsupported, then go ahead and point out a commodity that it better administered by holding a gun to our heads and redistributing our extorted wages?

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 40):And there's the icing on the cake - comparing the NHS to communist systems of the past (presumably with a straight face as well, though we can't see that).....absolutely hilarious.

Well it is isn't it. It's centrally planned and it's tax funded free at the point of delivery. I'm not saying that the whole country is communist but healthcare more or less is. The same set of incentives are there. People are not financially incentivised to look after their health. They are not incentivised to seek cost efficiency in the healthcare they choose. And the NHS are not as acutely incentivised to keep costs down nor innovate because they are a monopoly. The pressure to push costs down comes from the top, and that is not actually currently happening. In fact the £70bn budget increase in 13 years is bankrupting our country, and when sterling finally collapses, those unseen unnecessary deaths will be very visible indeed.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 42):Why is it unsupported? If you think it's unsupported, then go ahead and point out a commodity that it better administered by holding a gun to our heads and redistributing our extorted wages?

It's an unsupported claim because you yourself admit that you can't provide any data or factual evidence to substantiate it. As for your unrelated and random demand, I see healthcare as a right essential to life, not merely a commodity.

Not at all, I just don't believe the terms of the question are accurate. Furthermore, I don't believe that taxation is extortion at all, further undermining the terms of what you ask.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 45):Well it's still a commodity whether or not you think it's a right too, you just think it's a right to a commodity.

I don't agree. Healthcare is something quite apart from other things which are bought and sold, and I believe strongly should be considered as something quite uniquely different from things even like food. I don't think it's a right to a commodity at all - I believe it's a right, full stop.

Yes, but then again, you debate like a small child so what you think is hardly of much concern to me.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 46):I don't agree. Healthcare is something quite apart from other things which are bought and sold, and I believe strongly should be considered as something quite uniquely different from things even like food. I don't think it's a right to a commodity at all - I believe it's a right, full stop.

Ok obviously you are extremely reluctant to give anything away.

Can you not at least see the merits of a voluntary healthcare system as supposed to a forceful/parasitical one?

Can you not see how the incentives to improve medical quality and keep costs down are far stronger in a free market system with competitors and not monopolies like in almost every other industry which requires human action to achieve results.

If not, I'd be curious to learn what characteristics of healthcare you perceive to be fundamentally different that means these normal dynamics aren't there.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 47):Can you not at least see the merits of a voluntary healthcare system as supposed to a forceful/parasitical one?

A loaded question - I do not view the NHS as forceful or parasitical in any way.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 47):
Can you not see how the incentives to improve medical quality and keep costs down are far stronger in a free market system with competitors and not monopolies like in almost every other industry which requires human action to achieve results.

No, I can't.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 47):If not, I'd be curious to learn what characteristics of healthcare you perceive to be fundamentally different that means these normal dynamics aren't there.

I'm not saying that no economic dynamics exist, as obviously the system has to buy things and interact in some ways with the wider economy. Economics should not, however, be the overriding priority. Looking after the health of the nation and having healthcare accessible to all regardless of means should be the priority. Yes we should seek best value within such parameters, but this is something that ultimately should not be directly about making money. Look after the health of the country properly and the economic benefits will come anyway.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 48):A loaded question - I do not view the NHS as forceful or parasitical in any way.

How does it get its funding then? We are forced to pay for it whether we like it or not. If you have a right to something, you have a right to force someone to provide you with healthcare.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 48):Yes we should seek best value within such parameters, but this is something that ultimately should not be directly about making money.

The NHS is about making money. Nurses, GPs, surgeons, managers, consultants all make money. Many of them far too much. The advantages of a competitive market vs a monopolistic one is that these amounts are kept in check.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 48):Look after the health of the country properly and the economic benefits will come anyway.

That is in stark contrast with reality though. The country is going bankrupt. Part of that reason is because we are grossly overspending on healthcare - largely because we are divorced from the costs.

Which it undoubtedly does, but the real issue/question surely is: are the number of unnecessary deaths from socialised healthcare statistically significantly higher than non socialised healthcare? There are many unnecessary deaths in both cases, but we would be stupid to think healthcare professionals in any system don't make mistakes.

I had my appendix out a few years ago. Total bill for laparoscopy and 2 day stay was $112,000. A friend of mine had the exact same operation and a 1 day stay in an NHS hospital in the UK and was billed a total of £4900 for the whole lot. My anaesthetic alone cost more than that.

And IMO the standard of hospital and emergency care is far, far better in the UK. Particularly night care, which is consistently appalling in the US.

As others have said the NHS has its problems, but fortunately those myopic and stupid enough to want to abolish it are few and far between.

If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 50):Which it undoubtedly does, but the real issue/question surely is: are the number of unnecessary deaths from socialised healthcare statistically significantly higher than non socialised healthcare?

Yes that was the point i was making.

In fact i made that pretty clear in my statement and i'm suprised you didn't pick up on it...

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 36):Socialised care already causes many unnecessary deaths, you just don't see it because you've never seen what healthcare would be like in an environment which encouraged costs to come down and quality to go up.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 50):but humans don't as part of their very nature see risk very well if it isn't immediately obvious is shown by warning signs required on certain hazards such as electrical items or things that can be radioactive.

Does not compute. Warnings are information about potential hazards. The observer of a warning is still free to do the thing the warning is telling him not to do. In fact, the warning is the very thing that gives a potential hazard an element of risk in the first place. If a person did not know that a material was radioactive, or that there was a concealed cliff on a path, or a level crossing on the road ahead, from his point of view there would be no risk. So hilariously by giving an example of warning signs you are actually arguing that humans are risk averse.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 51):As others have said the NHS has its problems, but fortunately those myopic and stupid enough to want to abolish it are few and far between.

I see, but you asserted it as a fact when I it simply isn't. There is no evidence to suggest that socialised healthcare causes any more unnecessary deaths.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 52):Does not compute. Warnings are information about potential hazards. The observer of a warning is still free to do the thing the warning is telling him not to do. In fact, the warning is the very thing that gives a potential hazard an element of risk in the first place. If a person did not know that a material was radioactive, or that there was a concealed cliff on a path, or a level crossing on the road ahead, from his point of view there would be no risk. So hilariously by giving an example of warning signs you are actually arguing that humans are risk averse.

Humans are risk averse, but only if we can understand and see the risk in day to day life. We are not risk averse to electricity by nature but we are to big barking dogs. If the issues of getting health insurance can be promoted to everyone and everyone understands the risks then that's fine, but I don't believe it's in human nature to be able to quantify and understand those risks (and ok don't just mean on a monetary level).

For what it's worth I agree with you on a purely logical level but I feel very lucky to live in a country that tries not to let people fall through the cracks because I know that me or someone I love could fall victim to circumstances and be on the edge of those cracks some day.

I think if you put the amount you pay towards the NHS on your wage packet you would see you don't pay that much at all.

I don't know anyone who says they would rather not pay for it. Wait till you need a multi-thousand pound brain op or transplant.

I do think that some things treated in the NHS should be private like IVF and sex- reassignment. But i accept there are people in the medical profession who could argue why these things are worthy of public finances.

There is a great series on the NHS (Treating the Nation) on BBC i-player. I suggest all critics of the NHS watch it and you'll see how lucky we all are to have it available to us. It's the best thing about the UK.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 54): I don't see it as extortion though. I view such taxation as necessary.

It is extortion though. Whether you think it is necessary or not, the funding is still extracted from people through means of coercion. It's difficult to have an adult debate if you are not willing to call a spade a spade.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 54):On a nice paper in a classroom that might be the case, but there's nothing out there to suggest that NHS wages unfairly outstrip those in comparable countries with different systems.

Well where are these economic benefits then? We've pumped billions into the NHS and i don't see a good economy.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 54):The country has fared actually quite well compared to much of Europe, and to suggest that the NHS is the main cause of our economic troubles is a wild exaggeration.

Most countries in Europe are in a horrendous state too. The magnitude of the trouble that the UK is in must not be underestimated. We haven't even had the real crash yet, politicians and central bankers have spent the last 5 years trying to reflate the bubble and haven't actually addressed the structural problems with our economy.

It's not a wild exaggeration to pin it on the NHS either, in fact it's really the most accurate statement. The reason that we are in trouble now is that the government spends too much, and spending on the NHS is the most bloated.

Quoting babybus (Reply 55):I do think that some things treated in the NHS should be private like IVF and sex- reassignment. But i accept there are people in the medical profession who could argue why these things are worthy of public finances.

Sex-reassignment should certainly be covered by the NHS, providing certain safeguards are in place like mandatory psychotherapy and the requirement to live as your chosen sex for at least a year or so before any surgery takes place (pretty sure that's already the case). Relatively the numbers of people with a genuine need for it are small so the cost would be low.

IVF on the other hand should certainly not be IMO, when adoption is a much cheaper alternative.

If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.

Quoting babybus (Reply 55):I don't know anyone who says they would rather not pay for it. Wait till you need a multi-thousand pound brain op or transplant.

Well sometimes people need to learn the hard way and learn a lesson so not wishing this on anyone it might be a wake up call to some.

Quoting babybus (Reply 55):There is a great series on the NHS (Treating the Nation) on BBC i-player. I suggest all critics of the NHS watch it and you'll see how lucky we all are to have it available to us. It's the best thing about the UK.

Yes I posted the link to the Youtube video for those that cant view outside the UK.

Quoting cmf (Reply 61):Sure, as soon as you have expanded on the many requests people have made to you above.

Might be a good idea to list the points you want answered and Im 100% sure he will answer them otherwise it might be seen as avoiding the questions

Yeah I'm sure a healthcare system based on private corporations, like in the US would be just amazingly efficient. Then also British people could finally discover the joy of getting bankrupt because of insane healthcare costs.

I think the extreme failure of healthcare in the US has proven that healthcare being provided by private organizations just leads to insanely high costs and bad quality.

Quoting romeobravo (Reply 65):And of course, tax is theft/extortion/force. That's not a personal definition, it's literally what it is.

Taxation is something chosen by the people of any democratic country, if people want less taxes they are always free to vote for politicians that want less taxes & less money spent on social services.

Maybe you should think about moving away from the UK if it has been already destroyed and everyone is stealing your money to create more equal society, give some sick kid from poor family that could not afford private healthcare some proper treatment and other nasty stuff like that?

I suggest moving to some wild part of Africa, get some survival skills and then start living from the land. If you go far enough chances are that nobody will ever bother asking any taxes from you as local governments really don't provide anything to their people.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 66):I think the extreme failure of healthcare in the US has proven that healthcare being provided by private organizations just leads to insanely high costs and bad quality.

I'm arguing for free market healthcare. Not a corporatist/fascistic healthcare system that they have in the US.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 66):Taxation is something chosen by the people of any democratic country, if people want less taxes they are always free to vote for politicians that want less taxes & less money spent on social services.

I signed no agreement with my government saying he could take my earnings. It is theft, doesn't matter if it's done via the ballet box or whether it's legal or not, doesn't matter whether it's produces good results or not. Call it what it is, It is theft. If i held a gun to your head in the streets and asked for your wallet, and then gave the content of that wallet to charity, i would be stealing from you. It's no different when the government does it.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 66):Maybe you should think about moving away from the UK if it has been already destroyed and everyone is stealing your money to create more equal society, give some sick kid from poor family that could not afford private healthcare some proper treatment and other nasty stuff like that?

But trying to achieve equality of outcomes makes everyone poorer. You'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich would you? What a jealous person you are. And yes, in reply 22 i've outlined that i believe poor children should get free healthcare. So this argument is a misrepresentation of my position.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 67):But trying to achieve equality of outcomes makes everyone poorer. You'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich would you?

Nope, it's a well known fact that progressive taxation makes poor less poor, it doesn't make everyone poorer.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 67):Call it what it is, It is theft. If i held a gun to your head in the streets and asked for your wallet, and then gave the content of that wallet to charity, i would be stealing from you. It's no different when the government does it.

Nope, there's no risk of government shooting me even if I refused to pay taxes. They would just put me into jail.

As long as you use public services funded with tax money you have no right to complain. That includes using roads, walkways, any public funded buildings etc.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 69):What so instead of giving the money i stole off of you to charity, i used some of it to buy something that you didn't like, and then gave it to you, you would forego your right to complain?

Obviously that is nonsense.

A society with no taxes is something that could never exist, it would just fail. So unless you prefer anarchy there's no other way than a society with taxation to provide public services.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 70):A society with no taxes is something that could never exist, it would just fail. So unless you prefer anarchy there's no other way than a society with taxation to provide public services.

Again, i've never said no taxes. I've just said, call taxes what they are: theft

If you disagree with me then provide a logical counter-argument or don't say anything. Don't just resort to personal slurs. That makes it look like you have no intelligent response and that you are frustrated by it.

Every time someone brings up a commendation or positive experience of the NHS or anything remotely "socialist", there will always be a right wing bore like the chap everyone knows I am referring to in this thread to wear everyone else down with relentless anti-left remarks.

Why don't you go and attempt to be an MP. I know Nigel Farage would probably appreciate some of your extreme, unpleasant and supremely selfish views. It actually saddens me to think about what it must be like to be as bitter and miserable about everything as you are.

OP: Couldn't agree more with your comments about the NHS. Having had to use them in serious situations on a number of occasions, and witnessed the support they give, I am proud to support the system not only for myself but for others. I'm not afraid of looking after others less fortunate than myself, unlike some extremely selfish characters previously mentioned. Yes, the system is abused by some, but it's being clamped down on, and it's an incredibly important asset to our country.

There's nothing selfish about my views. I want what's best for people. I just understand economics well enough to know how to achieve that.

You don't achieve prosperity by pointing guns at people's heads.

Quoting idealstandard (Reply 74):I'm not afraid of looking after others less fortunate than myself, unlike some extremely selfish characters previously mentioned. Yes, the system is abused by some, but it's being clamped down on, and it's an incredibly important asset to our country.

You are afraid of looking after others. That's why you support a state the extorts money from others, instead of putting your hand in your own pocket and giving charitably.

Quoting mmo (Reply 15):Anyhow, I personally am embarrassed when getting into discussions about health care in America or the lack of it.

I would be embarrassed also, getting into any discussion with a room full of people if I was naked and all of them had their clothes on ! ( Even though my wife constantly tell me that I have a "magnificent physique" for any man 30 yrs. younger than me )

Quoting mmo (Reply 24):A friend of mine who is a retired AA Captain, went into his doctor to have a hearing aid replaced.

Stop right there; Dare I suggest, you're completely "mixed up" about HC in the U.S. To start with, in the U.S., if you need a hearing aid, you either pay for it yourself, or you BUY insurance that will PAY for it; Neither Medicare OR Medicaid PAY for hearing aids. ( ditto for dental care ) Does that sound bad to all you Brits, basking in the glow of your "free health care"? I'm sure it probably does. You LOVE "your system" ! ( And I "love my system" and wouldn't trade it for YOUR system, even though I know very little about it, other than that YOU seem to be very happy with it, (and presumably also with the FACT that "petrol" (as you call it) costs more than hard liquor in the U.S. in the U.K.) I'm very glad to read in this thread how much MOST Brits seem to be so happy with THEIR HC, but what I fail to comprehend is, why are you so interested in trying to convince ME, that YOURS is "better" than MINE ? I'm VERY happy with MINE, and I would be even happier if EVERYONE would just "keep their hands off of it, and leave it as it is ! ( What could possibly be better than EVERYONE being "happy" ? )

Now.....before you start calling me "selfish", (or all of the other things I keep hearing from people in other countries who don't like OUR system.........)........may I point out, you don't know how OUR system works; it "works" just great, but being very complicated, (and being somewhat pressed for time just now, ( as my grass needs to be mowed, my blades need to be sharpened, and spending the necessary month required to explain the U.S. healthcare system to people who are so enamoured with THEIR system, would be just now, a fool's errand; (maybe later?)

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 73):If you disagree with me then provide a logical counter-argument or don't say anything. Don't just resort to personal slurs.

It's anything but a personal slur. It's a logical comment in itself, given that so many people so obviously disagree with your extreme description of taxes, and given the previous comments others have made pertaining to your views on the same. I will say whatever I like within the rules.

And that is not what actually happens in the UK, no matter how hysterical your ranting against our system becomes. There is no 'gun' held to my head. I'm even free to move to a range of other countries, but am actually proud of what we have here, so won't be doing so any time soon.

Quoting idealstandard (Reply 74):You are afraid of looking after others. That's why you support a state the extorts money from others, instead of putting your hand in your own pocket and giving charitably.

Everyone knows that charity will never cover even 50% of the money needed for social projects, there are way too many greedy people around. Thus taking the money from everyone no matter if they like it or not is the only working solution.

And if they disagree again they are always free to vote politicians who support less social security and reduced taxes, however majority of people thankfully disagree with you and vote politicians who believe in proper amount of social security. It's democracy.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 77):It's anything but a personal slur. It's a logical comment in itself, given that so many people so obviously disagree with your extreme description of taxes, and given the previous comments others have made pertaining to your views on the same. I will say whatever I like within the rules.

No, explain your counter argument in logical terms or take it back. How do you expect humanity to improve if you are not even going to have rational debate? It doesn't matter if others agree with you if they cannot provide a rational argument themselves. If 10 people say 2 + 2 = 5, it doesn't make it so.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 77):And that is not what actually happens in the UK, no matter how hysterical your ranting against our system becomes. There is no 'gun' held to my head. I'm even free to move to a range of other countries, but am actually proud of what we have here, so won't be doing so any time soon.

The gun is metaphorical, it implies the use of force. And you're proud of the fact that in a few years the country is going to be 1.4 trillion pounds in debt. You're proud of that? You can honestly say with a strait face that you're proud of that every man, woman and child will be £23,000 in debt. And you have the cheek to question whether i want what's best for people.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 78):Everyone knows that charity will never cover even 50% of the money needed for social projects, there are way too many greedy people around. Thus taking the money from everyone no matter if they like it or not is the only working solution.

What social programmes do you need? The best social programme is a strong economy free from the burden of onerous taxation so people can help themselves and don't need social programmes. They can get jobs that are well paid. Yes some people will fall through the cracks, charity can take care of them. People will have more money in their pockets to do that.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 78):And if they disagree again they are always free to vote politicians who support less social security and reduced taxes, however majority of people thankfully disagree with you and vote politicians who believe in proper amount of social security. It's democracy.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 79):What social programmes do you need? The best social programme is a strong economy free from the burden of onerous taxation so people can help themselves and don't need social programmes. They can get jobs that are well paid.

Like in the United States? There I see just extreme inequality and charity most definitely hasn't managed to really help majority of people who have fallen through those "cracks".

Also most people of our materialistic societies aren't gonna give much to charity no matter how much money they have.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 80):Like in the United States? There I see just extreme inequality and charity most definitely hasn't managed to really help majority of people who have fallen through those "cracks".

Also most people of our materialistic societies aren't gonna give much to charity no matter how much money they have.

The US is not a particularly free market economy any more, government spending constitutes 42% of the economy. But even still, the poor are no worse off than the poor in many other countries.

The main problem for the poor in America is obviously healthcare, but as i have explained in reply 22, this is due to the painfully distorted system in place there. If you just went south of the border to Mexico you'd see a much more cost effective system.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 80):Also most people of our materialistic societies aren't gonna give much to charity no matter how much money they have

Well if you have such faith in democracy then it's going to take at least 50% of people to be charitable to enact a government that is redistributive. But of course most people can't give much to charity because the government taxes them so much in the first place.

I gave 2k charitably last year. I'd like to give a lot more but how am i supposed to? First of all the government taxed me 30k last year. What they've also done is massively inflate the cost of housing through their ridiculous monetary policies meaning i am constantly chasing ever inflated house prices. All the while the value of my money is being inflated away. I would invest in gold but most of it is stuck in my business because i can't take it out quickly otherwise i will pay even higher tax rates. And if i invest it in gold in my company i'll have to pay corporate tax on any appreciation.

It's got to the stage where houses are essentially the currency in this country which btw is part of the reason for the growing wealth divide.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 80):No, it's justice and for good as long as those who aren't willing to comply with common rules are free to leave the country.

Democracy is simply the majority taking away the rights of the minority. That's why you need a constitution that lays out things that the government can't do. For example take money from one group of people and give it to another. Saying "or you can leave" doesn't make it valid. You are still violating people's rights. I never signed an agreement with my government that i should give 40% of my earnings to other people, the only way it is enforced is via the threat of incarceration. I thought we were meant to be above serfdom.

Let me put it in very simple terms: I think your interpretation is extreme, and thus hard to take seriously. Others here have indicated likewise. There is nothing to 'take back' - it is an opinion.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 79):And you're proud of the fact that in a few years the country is going to be 1.4 trillion pounds in debt. You're proud of that?

You assume that somehow the NHS is responsible for all that - and I fundamentally disagree with that notion, as I have already clearly stated. Hence the implication of pride in large debts on my part if not only totally speculative but also, fankly, a little odd.

A necessary evil for a functioning society, the level of 'evil' that can be levied on a society to produce a greater good will of course diminish and th overall maximum good to evil ratio will be good level of taxation (kind of like bang for your buck).

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 82):I gave 2k charitably last year. I'd like to give a lot more but how am i supposed to?

do you have any date to support how charitable giving varies with taxation levels?

Have you any data on death rates of socialised and non socialised healthcare yet or do you need more time?

It's not extreme though. It's literally what it is. I appreciate it's difficult to comprehend because you've grown up in a system where it is deemed normal. You've got to see it for what it is though. The government extorts money from it citizens and the only reason it can get away with it is because it has a monopoly on violence. It tries to give itself legitimacy by pretending that money is wisely spent for your benefit, ( ) but really it's all vote winning nonsense for people who want power.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 83):You assume that somehow the NHS is responsible for all that - and I fundamentally disagree with that notion, as I have already clearly stated. Hence the implication of pride in large debts on my part if not only totally speculative but also, fankly, a little odd.

I've not assumed anything. Again i've presented a very clear argument as to why the NHS is probably the biggest (but not the only) reason we are basically finished as a nation. The only reason people love the NHS is for the past 10 years at least, they haven't been paying for it. And i don't mean the people using it, i mean the tax base itself hasn't been paying for it. In short you either have to concede that the NHS is bankrupting us. Or, you have to judge the real NHS that we should have had with half the budget it currently does, to match what the nation could afford.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 84):A necessary evil for a functioning society, the level of 'evil' that can be levied on a society to produce a greater good will of course diminish and th overall maximum good to evil ratio will be good level of taxation (kind of like bang for your buck).

The only thing really necessary for a functioning society is protection from theft/violence/fraud. All other things can be achieved through voluntary transactions.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 84):Have you any data on death rates of socialised and non socialised healthcare yet or do you need more time?

The statistics are that there is not a single commodity that has been better provided by a lurching monolithic taxpayer funded entity than by competitive free market capitalist system. It's therefore perfectly safe to assume the inefficiencies of a lurching monolithic taxpayer funded entity have resulted in more unnecessary deaths than what would have occurred had it not been there.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 47):Can you not see how the incentives to improve medical quality and keep costs down are far stronger in a free market system with competitors and not monopolies like in almost every other industry which requires human action to achieve results.

"Medical quality" per se doesn't always depend on the market. There is already inherent competition within medicine as a practice and scientific exercise. Universities and research hospitals are highly competitive and doctors are as well. If NHS is run by medical professionals instead of politicians, careful planning can achieve retention of quality. The triple-payer system in Japan is a good example of how this can be.

Despite the presence of an NHS monopoly, the pharmaceutical industry here has remained quite robust. Companies like Daiichi-Sankyo, Otsuka, and Takeda have maintained strong sales growth. Bringing new drugs to market is difficult due to hyperconservative regulation, but the NHS carefully evaluates prices every 2 years and negotiates with big pharma to keep costs in check. Last year the government reduced drug prices by around 6% overall. This was accepted by industry because sales have continued to grow in lieu of the aging population.

If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty

I have just completed reading almost 40% of the replies to this thread; in reading them, I have suddenly come up with a marvelous idea; I think I'll write a book, "Why Liberals love socialized medicine", then, (with you permission of course), I will use all of the above posts in the book. After I sell a sufficient number of copies, I'll give everyone a "royalty". You may want to apply this towards the premiums for your insurance.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 66):Maybe you should think about moving away from the UK if it has been already destroyed and everyone is stealing your money to create more equal society, give some sick kid from poor family that could not afford private healthcare some proper treatment and other nasty stuff like that?

I suggest moving to some wild part of Africa, get some survival skills and then start living from the land. If you go far enough chances are that nobody will ever bother asking any taxes from you as local governments really don't provide anything to their people.

Wow, what a plan ! You should think about getting on "Saturday Night Live" with you plan; the audience would just LOVE it ! ( Let me know and I'll get their phone number for you; maybe you'll get rich ?)

Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 10):So goes the argument but why not just pay for it yourself instead of via NI and Tax.

Because despite the rather simplistic economic views of the late lamented St Margaret of Finchley not everyone can obtain a high paying job or establish their own business, whether it be through lack of ability or personal circumstances. Not all jobs that have been created are high paying or even full-time. People on low incomes or working irregular part-time are less able to afford insurance. And the most simplest error is that working harder means earning more money. It doesn't really matter how hard a person works. What may matter is what they work at. A loan shark or enforcer may not work very hard but earns a lot more than a seamstress in a sweat shop. I haven't even touched on the elderly or those suffering from dementia. How are they to work harder to pay for it themselves?

My own view is that a two-tier system is partly what has produced some of the problems in the health services of some countries that have socialised medical services. In some states it allows those who can afford to go private to "jump the queue", meaning that those who can't have to wait longer for elective surgery. In those countries that offer rebates to those who take out private insurance it has simply resulted in less money being available for the national sector. I recall many years ago when BUPA was being promoted, I asked and what happens when everybody has private insurance? Will they introduce SUPABUPA with higher premiums for those who still want to jump the queue?

The idea that people can select what they wish to be covered for sounds attractive in theory. But how can anyone know what illnesses or conditions will affect them? Do you know that you will get a debilitating disease or suffer a stroke? Many schemes allow people to add additional cover but when a person is older the premiums will be higher. And I have yet to come across a scheme that provides cover without exclusions, annual limits or other restrictions.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 75): I just understand economics well enough to know how to achieve that.

So before the introduction of socialised medicine, why was the general health of the population worse then it is today? Why is it that in some countries where tax rates are low and regulations few, we see people dependent on donations from overseas to fund doctors, hospitals and clinics? I have yet to see popular appeals for charity to support poor sick children in the UK but have seen plenty for schemes in so-called third world countries. Clearly, an absence of regulation and lower taxes do not necessarily lead to greater health benefits for all. While some will have the means to afford health-care those who lack those means for whatever reason will either depend on the fickle charity of others or go without.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 82):That's why you need a constitution that lays out things that the government can't do. For example take money from one group of people and give it to another.

So those who wish to benefit from a police force or army should take out private insurance because taking money from you and giving it to soldiers or police officers is obviously "theft" and immoral. I mean, I am not thinking of attacking Mongolia any time soon and I doubt China has anything personal against me, so why do I need an army? Simple.

There is an old Libyan proverb that says one finger can not lift a pebble. It can be interpreted in several ways but the English poet, satirist, lawyer and cleric John Donne summed it up as "No man is an Island." Just as the fingers of a hand working together are stronger and achieve greater things, so too does society benefit when it works together rather than by setting each one against the other. For all its faults, the NHS was one of the most significant achievements benefitting ordinary citizens rather than just enriching a few.

Quoting baexecutive (Thread starter):What an institution, if ever I was proud to be British it would be now.....we have a universal healthcare, regardless how rich or poor you are, you are human....and will be treated as such....my highest respect goes out to the British NHS....alight in a dark world.

Good topic. It's not often that folks just come out to praise and appreciate the good things they have, and it's really great to see how you guys make that work so well there. Now if we could just do it right here...

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 86):Despite the presence of an NHS monopoly, the pharmaceutical industry here has remained quite robust. Companies like Daiichi-Sankyo, Otsuka, and Takeda have maintained strong sales growth. Bringing new drugs to market is difficult due to hyperconservative regulation, but the NHS carefully evaluates prices every 2 years and negotiates with big pharma to keep costs in check. Last year the government reduced drug prices by around 6% overall. This was accepted by industry because sales have continued to grow in lieu of the aging population.

Yeah, that's pretty neat too. I do like the idea of regulating meds costs since a good deal of people are quite dependant on these to function daily.

Sigh. Nor does one RomeoBravo there saying 2 + 2 = I hate gov't and taking care of people will cause Armageddon make it true.

I don't even know where to begin with you but I'll just say that if this stuff bothers you so much, just opt the hell out already.

I know you hate taxes and think that's great, but the truth is that that opinion belies a somewhat juvenile level of experience. Perhaps someday when you break into middle class level income, you'll see that it's not all bad.

I used to worry about taxes and such when I was younger too, but as I started doing better and better over the years, I noticed that it really is a very small price to pay to have a system where you can actually improve your situation. And there really is no way to do that without a strong regulatory environment to counter the effects of free-market capitalism, which would almost certainly eat a guy like you right up.

This is a perspective I hold from a place that is actually inferior to where you are, no less. No free Uni here, and what we pay in Health Ins is an awful lot more (lol, for an awful lot less; seriously, do you even know what a deductable is?) than just a small tick up in taxes.

Before you rant onward and try to tell folks with more experience than you how smart you think you are, keep in mind that it's worth checking your privelage first. A lot of people like cmf (sorry, just picking on you as an example) have really been there and done that with regard to getting medical attention in a very "free market" system. If you really want to tell people "how it is", common over here and live the dream, buddy. But seriously, bring your checkbook.

Or you assume they are to fit your agenda?
Show the statistics then, you can't just assume the vital part of your reasoning.
until you prove the assumptions you are making it will just be a case of all talk and no trousers.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 91):Show the statistics then, you can't just assume the vital part of your reasoning.

The statistics are that near 100% of commodities are produced better by the free market than by monolithic socialist institutions. Unless you can name a single buck to that trend.

But why are you even hassling me anyway? Why are the pro-NHS lot not getting similar levels of scrutiny for claiming the NHS saves loads of lives when we haven't seen the alternative. Oh of course, it doesn't fit your narrative.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 90):I know you hate taxes and think that's great, but the truth is that that opinion belies a somewhat juvenile level of experience. Perhaps someday when you break into middle class level income, you'll see that it's not all bad.

Read the thread and you will see that i pay way way above the average level of taxes.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 90):have really been there and done that with regard to getting medical attention in a very "free market" system.

Again *Read the thread*, the US system is NOT free market. See reply 22.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 90):This is a perspective I hold from a place that is actually inferior to where you are, no less. No free Uni here, and what we pay in Health Ins is an awful lot more (lol, for an awful lot less; seriously, do you even know what a deductable is?) than just a small tick up in taxes.

Yes i know exactly how the US healthcare system works (or doesn't). If you READ THE THREAD before jumping in here with your condescending strawment arguments you'd see that. I'm not asking for the US system FFS.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 90):And there really is no way to do that without a strong regulatory environment to counter the effects of free-market capitalism, which would almost certainly eat a guy like you right up.

What makes you say that (and i must say your post is sounding like a vey hate-filled rant here already). I earn in the top 2% thanks to the free market. I run my own consultancy business in the free market. Due to this I essentially have no employment rights when i work (free market employment). I have been to hospital once in my life (excl birth). I have been to the doctor twice in the last 6 years. I have never ever claimed benefits. I have never filed a police report. I've handed over a fortune in tax and i've got very little in turn. And you're telling me i'd be eated up?

And you need a strong regulatory environment to counter the effects of the free-market? What are these effects exactly? high levels of prosperity?

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 89):Because despite the rather simplistic economic views of the late lamented St Margaret of Finchley not everyone can obtain a high paying job or establish their own business, whether it be through lack of ability or personal circumstances.

No more is spent on healthcare per year than on food. But do we need a big monolithic government monopoly to administer food to the people? No, that would be ridiculous. So why do we need it for healthcare?

And of course the point is, prices are brought down by market competition. People are more inclined to look after their health when they're paying for it. They're more likely to think twice about going to the doctor because they have a sniffle if they have to pay for it. Doctors are incentivised to keep their costs in line with what people can afford. So it becomes more cost effective which improves the economy which is good for the poor.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 89):And I have yet to come across a scheme that provides cover without exclusions, annual limits or other restrictions.

...Including the NHS

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 89):So before the introduction of socialised medicine, why was the general health of the population worse then it is today?

Same reason planes are a lot better than they were 60 years ago.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 89):So those who wish to benefit from a police force or army should take out private insurance because taking money from you and giving it to soldiers or police officers is obviously "theft" and immoral. I mean, I am not thinking of attacking Mongolia any time soon and I doubt China has anything personal against me, so why do I need an army? Simple.

I've already stated that some tax is necessary so government can defend your right to not have force initiated upon you. Which is a genuine right, unlike the right to steal. I am aware it's a contradiction but it's a consequentialist position.

Such is the general theory but along with price reduction there is often a reduction in quality. Inevitably with competition there are company failures so we would need not only insurance against the health companies failing but additional insurance against the insurance provider failing.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 93):They're more likely to think twice about going to the doctor because they have a sniffle if they have to pay for it.

Yes, with the consequence that they may infect others with something that may be more serious than a "sniffle". It may seem brave to "soldier on" and go to work instead of to the doctor but is it that wise if it results in more staff becoming ill and productivity falling? Of course it would deter those who are not genuinely ill but are simply seeking a cover for taking a day off work, but surely doctors are in the best position to judge rather than an unqualified employer who wants to avoid paying wages for a couple of days.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 93):Same reason planes are a lot better than they were 60 years ago.

To be sure, there have been improvements in medical knowledge and technology just in the same way as there have been improvements in aeronautical engineering. And yet in some countries that are the most liberal in terms of regulation (or the absence thereof) and with minimal or no taxes we see the aviation industry is at its most dire. No doubt those airlines are "incentivised" to keep their costs down with the obvious drop in quality and, more importantly, safety. In consequence a whole swathe of airlines from those countries may not fly to or within the EU. That really isn't a good argument in favour of unfettered competition.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 94):Inevitably with competition there are company failures so we would need not only insurance against the health companies failing but additional insurance against the insurance provider failing.

Yes, it's true that there can be failures, but that's true of everything.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 94):It may seem brave to "soldier on" and go to work instead of to the doctor but is it that wise if it results in more staff becoming ill and productivity falling?

Then employers will be incentivised to tell people to go home to bed if they have a cold. (this already happens anyway and isn't really anything to do with private/public healthcare)

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 94):Such is the general theory but along with price reduction there is often a reduction in quality.

If people want quality they can pay for it. The market finds what people actually want. Some people would rather lower prices then unnecessary expenditure on quality. If people want FR they can fly FR. If people want Raffles class they can pay for it too.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 94):And yet in some countries that are the most liberal in terms of regulation (or the absence thereof) and with minimal or no taxes we see the aviation industry is at its most dire.

The facts say different. SQ, CX, EK are some of if not the 3 best airlines in the world. Yes some countries that are poor have low taxes and low regulations. But they also lack a lot of historical wealth (often due to years of colonialism) are dangerous with a weak rule of law and poor contract enforcement. Never the less flying in some of these poor countries is in the same ball park of danger as driving in the western world.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 95):Then employers will be incentivised to tell people to go home to bed if they have a cold.

So an unqualified employer is able to diagnose and prescribe a response to a medical problem? And simply based on "market considerations". That puts a lot of trust in employers who might not be as ethical as others. I would rather trust in a qualified medical practitioner than judgments based on the bottom line of a profit and loss report.

The facts very by countries, as you well know. The odd thing is that all operate in a regulated market (inhibited by ownership laws and "freedoms of the air" restrictions) and two of the three airlines that you mention are at least majority state owned and were not established by private capital. So perhaps sometimes the state can do things right?

And it really isn't as simple as what people want. I might want a Rolls Royce but if my budget only extends to a second-hand Ford...

Incentivise as much as you wish but it will not necessarily lead to the improvement that you may imagine. I am not sure how you will incentivise people with dementia to "work harder". Perhaps in the free market utopia they wouldn't matter. The late lamented St Margaret of Finchley's policy of allowing "lame ducks" to sink would be extended once more to the human sphere as well. Tant pis for those affected by this inhumane utilitarianism.

It wouldn't be the first time. During one of the coldest winters on record our precious Saint refused to extend the heating allowance to pensioners in Scotland, urging them to be frugal instead while the numbers dying from hypothermia increased. The treasury was spared a few thousand pounds and lucky for others no additional "theft" was required to give money to others so that they might stay alive a bit longer.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 96):So an unqualified employer is able to diagnose and prescribe a response to a medical problem? And simply based on "market considerations". That puts a lot of trust in employers who might not be as ethical as others. I would rather trust in a qualified medical practitioner than judgments based on the bottom line of a profit and loss report.

What the hell are you talking about? People already come in to work ill, and are often told to go home so as not to infect others. That's because it's in the employers interest not to infect the entire workforce. You don't need to be an qualified doctor to figure that out and i've never suggested you need that. I don't know why you're carrying on down this line because as i've already stated private/public funding of health would not affect this, it happens already.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 96):The odd thing is that all operate in a regulated market (inhibited by ownership laws and "freedoms of the air" restrictions) and two of the three airlines that you mention are at least majority state owned and were not established by private capital. So perhaps sometimes the state can do things right?

Sometimes it can, but not at a higher propensity than the market. Never the less your statement was that in countries with low taxation and regulation the aviation industry was poor. The 2 freest markets in the world are Hong Kong and Singapore. UAE also has basically no taxes. These 3 countries have amazing aviation sectors, now maybe there's intervention and there needn't be but again it wasn't my statement it was yours, i'm just pointing out the flaws in it.

There's a perfectly good example anyway and that is deregulation in the US. Which undoubtedly produced better results for consumers.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 96):And it really isn't as simple as what people want. I might want a Rolls Royce but if my budget only extends to a second-hand Ford...

And by your logic we should lobby the government to provide everyone with rollers? Again healthcare is currently no more expensive than food consumption and that's without market competition so why should people not be able to afford it? Or are you proposing too that the government should be administering food free at the point of consumption and tax funded too? Be consistent at least...

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 96): I am not sure how you will incentivise people with dementia to "work harder". Perhaps in the free market utopia they wouldn't matter.

And people would be incentivised to get insurance in-case they get dementia later in life. Failing that then let your family or charity can step in.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 96): The late lamented St Margaret of Finchley's policy of allowing "lame ducks" to sink would be extended once more to the human sphere as well. Tant pis for those affected by this inhumane utilitarianism.

Free market isn't about survival of the fittest. It's not dog eat dog, it's dog help dog. The people who rise to the top don't do so at the expense of others, they do so by helping others via voluntary exchanges.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 96):It wouldn't be the first time. During one of the coldest winters on record our precious Saint refused to extend the heating allowance to pensioners in Scotland, urging them to be frugal instead while the numbers dying from hypothermia increased. The treasury was spared a few thousand pounds and lucky for others no additional "theft" was required to give money to others so that they might stay alive a bit longer.

Again another failure of the state. The state should not be involved in pensions. Now as i've already pointed out in this thread the reason the state has to be involved is because it is so intent on devaluing the currency. If we had a static monetary base it would be easy to save up a sizeable pension because the real value of a pound would be rising and not falling. The UK currency would no longer be houses, it would be Sterling again.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 97): People already come in to work ill, and are often told to go home so as not to infect others.

True and people are often pressurised to stay because "we have that important deadline to meet". There are no reliable statistics kept on how often this occurs, despite anecdotal evidence so please don't respond with "The facts say..."

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 97):And by your logic we should lobby the government to provide everyone with rollers?

How so? Your logic is what I was responding to. But what you carefully avoid in this discussion is that while people are free to choose whether to fly or drive (assuming they can afford it) no one chooses to become ill. My logic has not been about choice but necessity, because choice is always dependent on needs and means. The utilitarian free-market approach only sees needs in economic terms and not in human requirement terms. My desire for a Rolls Royce may be an example of the first. Open heart surgery an example of the latter.

Are people who suffer from physical and intellectual disabilities making a lifestyle choice? Do parents, when they conceive a child, expect that the child will suffer from a disability that will make them dependent on others for the rest of their lives? Before you became a father had you taken out adequate insurance to cover that eventuality? If so, your action is praiseworthy. Most people simply do not think about it and while I agree that people should take more responsibility can we decide to ignore the needs of the child due to the failures (intended or otherwise) of the parents?

The problem with your utilitarian free market is that it does assumes that everyone is able to make free and rational decisions and that the market will respond. So why is that that companies had to be forced by legislative requirements to provide open access to people with disabilities? If it were true that the market solves all problems, then legislation would not have been required. The reality is that people in the market will not always respond to need - by which I mean real need and not an economic need which is simply what people are prepared to pay for.

Every single company on the planet could have afforded accommodation to people with disabilities without any intervention or coercion from the state. Why didn't they? Simple.

They feared that if they spent money on it to gain maybe two or three customers their prices would be higher compared to those of their competitor. The gain of two or three customers may have been exceeded by the loss of ten or twenty. Market economics dictated that to stay in business you pleased the ten or twenty and not the two or three. Now it is true that some service providers may decide to aim for a "niche" market but as soon as others see that might be a good ideas the same old competitive pressures reassert themselves. We see this in the aged care industry where the early promises have not been realised and there are increasing calls for greater regulation and injections of funds by the industry itself.

The market may not simply be about "dog eating dog" in the sense of customers eating companies or the other way around: it certainly is about capturing market share and staying ahead of your rivals. Where rivals co-operate it is often to restrict competition in the market, allowing both to survive but not necessarily to the benefit of consumers in the absence of regulatory controls.

Now I realise that we are unlikely to agree and so I will leave things there. I appreciate this opportunity to exchange views and see the arguments both ways. My best wishes to you.

Hmm, I see that disrespect for elective offices, regardless of who holds or has held it, is a cross-Atlantic problem.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 94):Inevitably with competition there are company failures so we would need not only insurance against the health companies failing but additional insurance against the insurance provider failing.

With effective insurance regulations, such as requirements for insurance companies to maintain equity and liquidity minimums to cover the business they write, hasn't caused any such widespread problems in this regard, at least in the States. One of the roles which re-insurance companies play is to spread unusual risk around, helping to prevent any one insurer from collapsing due to catastrophic claims experience.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 99):Hmm, I see that disrespect for elective offices, regardless of who holds or has held it, is a cross-Atlantic problem.

How funny. I have not expressed any disrespect for any office, elective or otherwise. I have not criticised the office of the Prime Minister but the decisions of a particular one who lately has been eulogised to the point of nausea. I have commented on the values of an individual whose views were independent of the office that she held. A dogmatic, ideologically driven person may attain high office but that is no reason why we should respect their views. Or is such a position not permitted in the free world and a democratic society?

You point about appropriate regulation I can readily accept. I recall reading some time ago (unfortunately in a printed medium and not on the web where I can provide a link) how an insurance company had gone into liquidation, leaving thousands of people without cover and yet the directors were still able to take their "golden parachutes". That incident perhaps shows the need for regulation, even if most people in business are not fundamentally dishonest. Sometimes the regulation is needed to protect those who are honest from the adverse affects of those who are less than pukka.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 100):A dogmatic, ideologically driven person may attain high office but that is no reason why we should respect their views.

One may disrespect one's views without disrespecting the office they have earned. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, not St. Margaret of Finchley. I seem to have hit a defensive hot button. How intriguing.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 98): But what you carefully avoid in this discussion is that while people are free to choose whether to fly or drive (assuming they can afford it) no one chooses to become ill.

And people don't choose to need food either so again, why are you not being consistent and arguing for the government to administer tax funded food to everyone?

At lot of people do choose to get ill actually via lifestyle choices. But even for the ones that don't it still costs money to treat illnesses and that's why you get insurance for it. Just like you should get insurance for your house burning down or your car getting stolen.

The crucial thing is that you pay for your own insurance, other people don't pay for it. Because when you get other people to pay for things you want, that's when you create all the wrong set of incentives. Less downwards pressure on medical costs, less incentives for people to be productive because of taxes at the top end and freebies at the bottom, less incentive for people to lead healthy lifestyles.

The goal should be to make healthcare costs cheap so that everyone can afford better quality healthcare, and market forces are the best way of doing that. Look at the way cosmetic surgery and lasek have gone down over the years for example, these kinds of cost reductions should be happening across the board.

You commented, I was courteous enough to make a reply. Choose to interpret it in any way that you will as makes you happy. Had I ignored your comment, what would that have indicated?

How intriguing. Avoidance, maybe? I can think of several reasons that might be offered had I not been courteous to you.

Please demonstrate to me where I have disrespected an "office" rather than a person who of late has been eulogised and whose faults have been glossed over to promote the current incumbent of the office that she previously held. I am aware, and require no teaching from anyone, that Thatcher was PM. I am also aware that the Prime Minister of Iran is berated from time to time. No doubt you will challenge those who berate him in future threads, including myself, for showing the same "disrespect for office". Really?

Thank you for your kind enquiry in another thread. My best wishes to you.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 93):But do we need a big monolithic government monopoly to administer food to the people?

Need it or not, you have it. In your country as in mine, agraculture is heavily subsidized by the state, and this does indeed have a very profound effect on what happens in the marketplace, so this "point" of yours will be a non-starter.

And people who win the lottery are indepedently wealthy too if you want to look at it that way. What do they have in common with you? Couldn't have done it without an environment to set that up for you.

In any case, like I said before, as you get older and wiser, you'll see you have a very good deal as it now is. There's really no shame in that. You'll see that as you one day move further on through the tax brackets, even if you were to get to upper middle class status, your tax contribution to NHS would still be a pittance compared to what I pay for "private" insurance. And you wouldn't have deductables and ridiculous hoops to jump through WRT state lines, etc. As well, you'd be free to take a better job, not being shackled to a half-decent contribution plan.

The grass, my friend, is not always greener on the other side.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 92): I have been to hospital once in my life (excl birth). I have been to the doctor twice in the last 6 years. I have never ever claimed benefits. I have never filed a police report. I've handed over a fortune in tax and i've got very little in turn. And you're telling me i'd be eated up?

Taking that at value face, are you saying you will never need these services? You can promise everyone here that you'll never file a police report, go to hospital, or claim benefits? You'll never have an accident or be robbed; you'll never develop an addiction or cancer?

More abstractly, and more importantly, you're telling us that you have no need of the stability and prosperity that keeping these services provides to society at large? That you can just make do in some free-market jungle, is that it?

The fact is (or what the facts support if you like that better) that you don't see this says in objective terms that, yes, you'd last about ten hot minutes in such a place.

In all seriousness, if you can make good contacts and learn to deal with the locals, there are fortunes to be made in Africa, all without the benefits of gov't meddling. Give it a try sometime if you're that enthusiastic about free markets.

I'm not sure how you came to feel otherwise, but there's really nothing wrong with enjoying a system that does great things in exchange for so little.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 97): Again healthcare is currently no more expensive than food consumption

Hang on there, sport. Why do you think that is? That's right. You have NHS. In America, which is the free market model so seem to want so much, food production is much more labor intensive and requires all manner of supply and transport logistics that the healthcare would never nightmare of having to deal with.

And yet, it is a fraction of the cost of healthcare on a per capita basis. This is precisely what happens when you do not have an NHS to function as yours does.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 93):Same reason planes are a lot better than they were 60 years ago.

Sheesh. Again with the terrible metaphors. Planes are safer because of things like the FAA & EASA, etc. I take it you have zero experience dealing with those folks but rest assured there are reasons why the systems that issue everything from ADs to production/mx standards to Dispatch procedures exist. There exist a wealth of knowledge that you can actually read up, right here on this site, that make it abundantly clear that safety comes from regulation.

You can't even argue that efficiency comes from the free market, as things like ETOPS come, again, from regulation.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 97):And people would be incentivised to get insurance in-case they get dementia later in life.

Right, because of course folks with dementia respond to incentives like that.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 97):Free market isn't about survival of the fittest. It's not dog eat dog, it's dog help dog. The people who rise to the top don't do so at the expense of others, they do so by helping others via voluntary exchanges.

No, that's exactly what it is. Hence the term free market. If you like, you may wish to expand your horizons as to what free markets look like by actually visiting some. Travel can be expensive, but as you are not burdened with healthcare costs at all, you should be able to afford this or at least borrow sufficiently.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 98):
The problem with your utilitarian free market is that it does assumes that everyone is able to make free and rational decisions and that the market will respond.

Absolutely. This is even more true when we see how much of free market capitalism is actually based on consumers making bad decisions (at least long term ones), at pretty much every level. Good point there.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 92):Why are the pro-NHS lot not getting similar levels of scrutiny for claiming the NHS saves loads of lives when we haven't seen the alternative.

Because they do save loads of lives as does any healthcare system. The issue was unnecessary deaths caused by the system in comparison to non socialised healthcare, basically an anova study between the two systems with any other statistically valid effects modelled out.
(Your assertion was that socialised healthcare caused more deaths than non socialised healthcare

Until you have evidence to back up your claims it is just an opinion and will be treated as such. If you basically are making a moral judgment on whether you think the NHS is worth it the please state as such and a debate can be had on those terms but don't try and use statistics if you aren't willing to back it up.

I personally don't think that there would be any real statistical difference between socialised and non socialised healthcare (this is currently an opinion and if I can be bothered to gather the data I will run a proper analysis to see) and that it is a moral judgment of the ruling gov't on what system to use. I for one am happy with the NHS for the peace of mid that it gives me.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 102):And people don't choose to need food either so again, why are you not being consistent and arguing for the government to administer tax funded food to everyone?

Just as a point of general knowledge, doesn't the UK participate in the EU food and farming subsidy programs? And are there no programs for the poor such as food stamps, or the additional programs we have for low-income women, infants and children?

Sorry but despite my previous statement that I would leave it there I feel obliged to comment. While it is absolutely true that people do not choose to need food, they do choose whether to eat spaghetti, McDonalds (spelling?, am I allowed to mention them?) or bacon and eggs. They also choose whether to eat fresh foods that may avoid or reduce the risk. While food is a necessity for human survival, no particular type is and no diet has been clinically proven to eliminate all health risks.

How does that compare with deciding, in the middle of a heart attack, whether you wish to be treated at St Margaret's or St Hugh's, or whatever the hospitals within reasonable reach may be, assuming you actually know which is the closest? Now it might be argued that certain diets or lifestyles may contribute to an increased incidence of heart disease but their is conflicting evidence. Should a person who lacks insurance but is undergoing a medical emergency be deprived of treatment?

While I agree that lifestyle choses can increase the propensity for certain types of illnesses you have again avoided the issue of what happens to those who had no say in the matter of whether to be insured (children) or those who lack an income or ability to make informed choices (dementia sufferers, for example).

You have also not shown why the market failed to provide for those who have various disabilities or impairments prior to legislation being introduced. I mean no disrespect but unless a coherent argument can be advanced to answer that basic question then we can not simply assume that the market will provide in future.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 104):In any case, like I said before, as you get older and wiser, you'll see you have a very good deal as it now is.

I get an awful deal. I pay 30k and get little in return. Probably the equivalent of about 7k.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 104):There's really no shame in that. You'll see that as you one day move further on through the tax brackets

There are no more (plural) for me to move through. I don't know if it's slipped by you but i earn way way above the UK and US average. I'm not the naive little boy that doesn't understand how business work that you're making me out to be.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 104): even if you were to get to upper middle class status, your tax contribution to NHS would still be a pittance compared to what I pay for "private" insurance.

No, because i pay 3 times the average in tax. And US healthcare is only 2 times more expensive. Have you not read anything i've written?

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 104):You have NHS. In America, which is the free market model so seem to want so much

I have said this so many time I can't really believe i'm having to repeat it again, I don't want the US healthcare system. Why? Because the US healthcare system is ****NOT**** free market. It mostly resembles a fascistic economic structure. Have you not read anything i've written?

No they're safer because technology has improved largely based on the fact that airlines and passengers don't want planes to crash. And FAA regulation are more stringent, because technology has improved and they can be more stringent without severaly impacting costs. Don't put the cart before the horse.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 104):The fact is (or what the facts support if you like that better) that you don't see this says in objective terms that, yes, you'd last about ten hot minutes in such a place.

No that's just your condescending attitude. As i say, my job is very free market based because i have sacrificed my employment rights. I could get terminated at any time for any reason by my clients.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 104):You can't even argue that efficiency comes from the free market, as things like ETOPS come, again, from regulation.

Who made the engines that met those requirements? PW/GE/RR or the regulators? There's a flaw in your thinking too. Regulations don't make things more efficient, they tell companies to make things more efficient in certain areas at the expense of others. That does not mean improved overall efficiency.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 104):If you like, you may wish to expand your horizons as to what free markets look like by actually visiting some.

I've been to Hong Kong, it was awesome. Free market doesn't mean no rule of law you know. It means little or no intervention or management of the economy by the government.

Now please, before you go to post a great wall of drivel again try and first read what i've actually written so i don't have to go through and correct you.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 109):*sigh* what an appallingly long and ignorant post we have here...

Don't be so hard on yourself. While what you say not everyone is going to agree with, you do not need to describe yourself as either boring or ignorant. As far as the boring goes, I have welcomed the invitation to debate.

My dear boy, you really should read up on what fascism was and you will find that it was not opposed to business per se. Indeed, the most ardent supporters were those who headed business because it would keep the unions under control. Even Winston Churchill, for example, once quipped that he would welcome a government of the type headed by Mussolini if it made the trains run on time. That doesn't mean that Churchill himself was a fascist - and I stress that point- but it does illustrate the frustration felt by many in business and in government at those who challenged the supremacy of free-market ideology.

I would agree that you are not a person who is naïve, but I do question some of the conclusions that you have drawn based on the answers that you have failed to provide. The issue of whether children born with disabilities should be denied treatment based on whether their parents have adequate insurance, and knowing that insurance companies change their policies more often than a stripper drops her knickers.

But as you admit, you were not taken ill there or a regular resident. The experience of a visitor and the experience of a resident and/or citizen may be completely different. I have visited Dubai several times and had a wonderful time. Others who work there have been dismissed and had their visas cancelled because they wanted to be able to take advantage of the annual leave that both their contracts and Dubai law "guaranteed." Subjective impressions are not a suitable substitution for verifiable data.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 106):Just as a point of general knowledge, doesn't the UK participate in the EU food and farming subsidy programs? And are there no programs for the poor such as food stamps, or the additional programs we have for low-income women, infants and children?

The CAP which is quite possibly the dumbest thing ever conceived by the EU (we must have a European wide free market so we can protect the European market from terrible foreigners) is a guarantee on food prices for farmers. Subsidies are issued if they're missed or something like that. The result is that Europeans pay more for their food and poor African farmers can't undercut Europeans.

Yes it's true that there are benefits (not food specific) for the workshy. We don't have a monolithic government entity producing food though so the system is still subject to market forces with a healthy level of competition between supermarkets.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 107):How does that compare with deciding, in the middle of a heart attack, whether you wish to be treated at St Margaret's or St Hugh's, or whatever the hospitals within reasonable reach may be,

No obviously, you choose insurance before you have a heart attack. Pressure on hospital prices occurs via the middle man (the insurer). Though in the interim i wouldn't be against government emergency services until there's a competitive market there.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 107):While I agree that lifestyle choses can increase the propensity for certain types of illnesses you have again avoided the issue of what happens to those who had no say in the matter of whether to be insured (children) or those who lack an income or ability to make informed choices (dementia sufferers, for example).

I have actually answered these. You like many people in here seem to have a disinterest in reading the thread though.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 105):What people are generally looking for when they say proof are properly written peer reviewed studies with data taken from trustworthy sources.

That's like asking for a peer reviewed study into the existence of gravity. There aren't any because it's so bleeding obvious and frankly it's embarrassing that you're continuing to push this one. It's like you've never had a cursory glance into the history books where communism massively failed and capitalism didn't.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 105):The issue was unnecessary deaths caused by the system in comparison to non socialised healthcare

But, if there wasn't an NHS, and more people would have been alive through a market based solution, that means the NHS has caused unnecessary deaths. Yeah sure the NHS has "saved lives" only if you're imagining a world were if it weren't for the NHS there'd be nothing else. I don't see why just because i've had the brainwave to point out the potential fallacy in the original statement i am the one that gets extra scrutiny. Oh wait, i do, it's because it doesn't fit the narrative.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 110):My dear boy, you really should read up on what fascism was and you will find that it was not opposed to business per se. Indeed, the most ardent supporters were those who headed business because it would keep the unions under control.

Why should i read up on what fascism was? I know what it was. That's why i am comparing the economic elements of it to the US healthcare system. Private ownership, government control and cronyism. Not free market. Free market is private owndership, private control, an absence of government handouts or favours.

Why don't you, instead of telling people what to go and read in a condescending tone, read the things that are in front of you first.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 111):Yes it's true that there are benefits (not food specific) for the workshy.

No wonder I couldn't find anything other than what looked to be small loans against future benefits. Even though we don't have socialized medicine (yet), we do have an extensive food benefit for the less financially able in the States.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 112):Why don't you, instead of telling people what to go and read in a condescending tone, read the things that are in front of you first.

Interesting that the condescending tone came from someone who was playing the role of word arbiter in another thread, pointing out what he considered to be arrogance. Oh, they'll never learn, will they.

So how do you equate providing health and care for those who could not afford it with fascism? As far my memory goes, the official policy of fascism, as practised in Germany was killing those who were disabled, though providing basic health covet for those otherwise regarded as "fit". They also banned state payments to doctors who were Jewish, forcing many to leave the medical profession and Germany itself. Does the NHS in Britain impose similar restrictions? If so, you are absolutely correct to suggest an equivalence between the two.

Neither the Nazis nor the fascisti in the Italy, not to mention the fallangists in Spain, ever supported the notion of looking after the sick or disabled. While Franco may not have expressly called for the "removal" of disbled people in the same way as the Nazis did, eugenicist ideology was not that far from their beliefs. So my suggestion of reading up one fascism is valid.

How funny. In another post you were actually defending forcing people to pay for these"inefficient monolithic socialist institutions" on,what was it you called it?, " consequentialist position." Note the direct quote to show hat I actually read what is in front of me first.

Have I played the role of arbiter? In the other thread I invited you to explain your decision to isolate an individual for criticism when ignoring others who were "guilty" of the same offense that you chose to identify. In this thread you have made an accusation against me and I have invited you to justify it and you have chosen not to. I won't insult you by asking you once again to put up but will let others decide who is the arbiter.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 114):So how do you equate providing health and care for those who could not afford it with fascism?

I'm not

Again just read what i've written...

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 109):I have said this so many time I can't really believe i'm having to repeat it again, I don't want the US healthcare system. Why? Because the US healthcare system is ****NOT**** free market. It mostly resembles a fascistic economic structure.

This means that i'm equating the economic system of US healthcare (and quite a lot of the rest of the economy) with a fascistic economic model.

I'm not comparing the NHS to a fascistic system. That would be comparable to a communist system.

Suggesting that some one read up on something and offering to remove the blindness are not the same thing. You suggested that you could help somebody to see something, while I suggested somebody explore a bit more. Is that the same?

I note that you still, persistently refuse to respond to any questions directed at yourself. Why is that? You accused me of disrespect for an office and I requested you to present evidence of that. You have refused, twice, to so do. Why is that?

Sorry to keep asking the question "Why is that?" If you were to respond to the actual question and not introduce some other angle of attack, I would not need to ask.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 116):This means that i'm equating the economic system of US healthcare

So, an elective government, which according to the laws in force in a country generally regarded as having a democratic system of checks and balances, introducing laws that were publicly part of an election campaign can be stated as being the equivalent of a state that was built on an extra-parliamentary militia, receiving backing from certain sections of the burgershaft and military, taking power, imprisonimg its rivals (mainly trade unionists, SDP and KPD members) and murdering its opponents. Please note that nowhere in any of their election material did the Nazis announce that they were going to round upo everybody that disagreed with them. let alone exterminate them. had that been the case, it is highly unlikely that they would ever come to power. You may hate taxes, and you may (or not) hate Obama, but he did make clear his belief in a Medicare system. Whatever faults that system may have, it is an insult to the victims of fascism to equate health care with totalitarianism and the death camps that resulted.

Despite your claims to "know what it was" I find it difficult to see a comparison between those who advocate universal and affordable health care and those who not merely advocated but carried out exterminating those who disagreed.

You accused me of showing disrespect to the office of Prime Minister. I asked for evidence of that. You have not provided any. I have indicated that I have criticised the views of a particular person who held that post. You have not demonstrated a coherent argument of how criticism of views held by a holder of that office are the same as criticism of the office itself. You know this already and I do not understand why such a questionable confusion could be made.

If someone were to criticise the present incumbent of the Whitehouse would that be disrespect for the office of the president? I would hope not, otherwise we would not be free to criticise the leadership of Iran or Korea, but we do and possibly half the threads on A.net would have to be shut down because they invariably criticise whoever is current president. This is quite apart from the fact that St Margaret has not been PM for several years but is still eulogised by some. I understand that in Roman times, due to superstition, the motto was "De mortuis nihil nisi bonum" but in the twenty first century? During her life she had plenty of opportunity to defend her views. That does not mean that in death we should simply accept the views of her adulators.

So again. Demonstrate where I have expressed disrespect for an office rather that the incumbent of that office. You personally might not like the expression St Margaret of Finchley, any more than others might not have liked the definition of Red Ken when he was head of the Greater London Council, an office that was abolished by Thatcher because its mandate challenged that of the Tories. That is as may be but criticism of the policies of a holder of an office does not equate with criticism of the office itself. That is something that you have proven by your own omission to respond other than saying somebody held an office. QED.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 119):You accused me of showing disrespect to the office of Prime Minister. I asked for evidence of that. You have not provided any.

LOL, is that what your drama piece of "you still, persistently refuse to respond to any questions directed at yourself" is about? (My bolding.)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you're new here ( ), but a significant percentage of this board takes issue to disrespectful names to refer to those who have held or are holding elected office (see recent threads where the use of "Obummer" to refer to the current U.S. president has been discussed, just as the same topic was discussed when Bush was in office). If you stick around, you'll quickly pick up whether you want to lend credibility to your posts by using correct terminology or not. (Just as you might want to improve your credibility by not accusing people of having refused to respond to "any" post, when they certainly have.)

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 119):If someone were to criticise the present incumbent of the Whitehouse would that be disrespect for the office of the president?

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 120):I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you're new here

How gracious of you. I am really indebted to your generosity and your willingness to humour a tyro.

But you still have not demonstrated what you accuse me off. You have stated how other people may have felt in other threads but that does still not convict me of any offence, nor is it material to this thread. More importantly, it does not address any of the points that I have raised in my contributions in this thread.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 99):Hmm, I see that disrespect for elective offices, regardless of who holds or has held it, is a cross-Atlantic problem.

... is not "convicting you of an offence". Using that terminology simply makes it appear that you're looking for something to feel offended about. Just lighten up a bit, Francis, you'll do fine if you choose to do so.

Continue to enjoy your time here on a.net. Always happy to see fresh faces.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 51): had my appendix out a few years ago. Total bill for laparoscopy and 2 day stay was $112,000. A friend of mine had the exact same operation and a 1 day stay in an NHS hospital in the UK and was billed a total of £4900 for the whole lot. My anaesthetic alone cost more than that.

Interesting, We are told here all the time, by the likes of UKIP and other odds and sods, that the NHS is a free for all for foreigners. It's BS, fodder for the hard of thinking.

Also interesting about the Pharmacy industry in Japan, while too many other industries have fallen by the wayside in UK, pharmacy is still a sector the UK has a world class presence in.
Likely helped by the fact that since 1948, they have had a very large home market, which helps to sustain investment.
Prior to the NHS, that market was smaller even allowing for the less evolved range of drugs then, simply because many millions of people could not afford the medication they needed.

They just had to endure, even if, as in grandparents on my mum's side of family, died young.
RomeoBravo, this is what happened. To millions of people. Which is why we now have a health system free at the point of use, contributed by all. It is a cornerstone of a civilised society.

In the wake of the attack on the soldier in London this week, someone at work, worldview provided by the tabloid press, complained that the attackers surviving the shooting by the police, facing very long jail sentences, would be a burden on THEIR taxes. That THEY should not have to pay. Which you ought to be able to opt out of a proportion of your tax.
This from someone earning above average wages.
I had to point out that this idea would also lead to CND types opting out of taxes for defence, people involved in criminal activity opting out of taxes for the police/justice system, the rich opting out of health and social taxes.
In other words, it would all collapse.
That thought had never occurred to them.

On the broader point it has been shown that services just for the poor, are always poor services.
And you'd best hope that you do not ever end up in that situation.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 89):There is an old Libyan proverb that says one finger can not lift a pebble. It can be interpreted in several ways but the English poet, satirist, lawyer and cleric John Donne summed it up as "No man is an Island." Just as the fingers of a hand working together are stronger and achieve greater things, so too does society benefit when it works together rather than by setting each one against the other. For all its faults, the NHS was one of the most significant achievements benefitting ordinary citizens rather than just enriching a few.

Quoting GDB (Reply 123):Interesting, We are told here all the time, by the likes of UKIP and other odds and sods, that the NHS is a free for all for foreigners. It's BS, fodder for the hard of thinking.

Indeed. If I go to the UK I have to pay for medical care even though I have a British passport. If I don't pay, I can't reenter the UK until I do.

If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.

Quoting GDB (Reply 123):RomeoBravo, this is what happened. To millions of people. Which is why we now have a health system free at the point of use, contributed by all. It is a cornerstone of a civilised society.

I don't see much point in resorting to emotional rhetoric. There seems to be a bit of an absence of literature about the pre NHS healthcare system in the UK although i do know a lot of it was charitable. Regardless what happened 70 odd years ago is hardly relevant to today. How many people had computers 70 years ago compared to today?

Take a look at the Singapore system. It's 2/3rds privately funded (more than the US system which is 55%) based on a system of compulsory savings with some degree of subsidy. The important point is that the patient always pay for a proportion of their healthcare (up to an annual limit). What are the results? Healthcare spending per head in Singapore is 61% of the UK (and that factors in PPP). On top of that Singapore achieves some of if not the best results out of all healthcare systems.

Now it's not a free market system obviously (and i would of course take it one step further) but it's a far more market based than the NHS and more so than the US system and it achieves outstanding results.

If the issue is that the poor won't be able to afford it, well then as i've already pointed even if you eat cheaply the annual cost of food is in the same ballpark to healthcare and we expect the poor to pay for their own food. So i don't see why we need to provide them with healthcare too. And that ignores the fact that lower taxation of the economy will improve the economy and their wages.

If you must subsidise the poor though it's far wiser just to give them money for which they can spend on anything instead of giving them free healthcare, that way the cost and utilisation of healthcare doesn't bloat.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 117):it is an insult to the victims of fascism to equate health care with totalitarianism and the death camps that resulted.

Christ almight that is the biggest straw man argument i've ever seen. You should be ashamed of yourself for embarking on something so petty.

You sir need to learn to (A) read what is in front of you and (B) grow up.

Just for completion here's what that is...

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 116):This means that i'm equating the economic system of US healthcare (and quite a lot of the rest of the economy) with a fascistic economic model.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 126):Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 117):
it is an insult to the victims of fascism to equate health care with totalitarianism and the death camps that resulted.

Christ almight that is the biggest straw man argument i've ever seen. You should be ashamed of yourself for embarking on something so petty.

No, what he's saying is that you don't know what you're talking about when making those comparisons. I think that he's right about that, too. Instead of flailing at folks you disagree with, think about coming up with something to back up your claims.

So far, all we've heard is a bunch of theory. Your sandwich is all bread, buddy.

Again, as I've said before, you'll see things differently as you begin to make real amounts of money; namely that taxes, even when relatively high, are always less of a burden than super-high premiums and deductibles. At your level, it may yet be awhile before this materializes, but in the meantime, enjoy the fact that lower strata do not pay what you're worried about, and take an opportunity to calm down about it.

You may indeed make enough one day to truly be paying a lot in taxes, but as people who do make that kind of money will tell you (outside of cheap political rhetoric), by then you'll have learned to appreciate the ability to do so, which can only come from a stable, well funded society.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 126):Take a look at the Singapore system. It's 2/3rds privately funded (more than the US system which is 55%) based on a system of compulsory savings with some degree of subsidy. The important point is that the patient always pay for a proportion of their healthcare (up to an annual limit). What are the results? Healthcare spending per head in Singapore is 61% of the UK (and that factors in PPP). On top of that Singapore achieves some of if not the best results out of all healthcare systems.

None of which is at all relevant to the UK NHS. But if you feel that strongly, opt out. Get packin, we'll wait.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 112):
Private ownership, government control and cronyism.

So i don't really know where you based this rant from. I can only conclude it was purposefully misconstrued because your real intentions are to slander me, rather than rationally debate.

I think if he wanted to slander you, he'd just wait on your next post. Why extend effort you don't have to, right?

Seriously, I don't know why you have a problem with NHS. It's a good program that obviously pays for itself in spades, and something you should very rightly be bragging about. The OP is right to praise this.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 127):Again, as I've said before, you'll see things differently as you begin to make real amounts of money

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 127):At your level, it may yet be awhile before this materializes, but in the meantime, enjoy the fact that lower strata do not pay what you're worried about, and take an opportunity to calm down about it.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 127):but as people who do make that kind of money will tell you (outside of cheap political rhetoric), by then you'll have learned to appreciate the ability to do so, which can only come from a stable, well funded society.

Oh look Mr Condescending is back. I'm just curious, what is real money to you? The median UK salary is £20,000. So how much do i have to earn until you believe I'm allowed to say "real money". What target do i have to aim for so that one day i'll "truly be paying a lot in taxes". Double the average salary, triple, 4 times? More than the Prime Minister? What is your threshold? In fact why don't you tell us what you earn.

The point where you are no longer consumed by petty concerns like the ones you exhibit. You see this a lot with the lower income crowd; the idea that income and take-home should be as close together as possible. That's a nice thought, but in real life, it simply doesn't work that way. For folks who make less than a certain amount (and, yes, this varies from place to place) it isn't a concern since the tax brackets are so low. So when you talk about having an objection to NHS, and when it's pointed out that the percentages are very low for this, there's really only one reason why anyone would object so vehemently to something that is so obviously good. And that reason is that the objector is running very thin margins to begin with. As you reach up to lower middle class, this is where you start to pay more in taxes, but it is also where your margins fatten up. As you get to middle class full on, more so still, and on and on.

That's how wealth works. If you were always paying taxes so that your personal margins stay the same, there'd be no point to making more, as you'd be living the same. I get that this is what you're concerned about, and it's how a lot of our poor think too. But rest assured, as you move up, you'll see that your concerns are not well founded, and you'll begin to live better, even when paying more. The fact that you don't see what a good deal that is (again, no NHS in the US!) says that you simply haven't had the opportunity to see what life with a larger margin is like, though I hope this changes for you soon.

Honestly, it really seems as though you're not quite sure why there's a very slight difference in what you earn vs what you take home. I realize this can become a dissapointment when one attempts to make a budget based on gross, so I do not recommend you do that.

Whilst i don't enjoy paying income taxes to fund the workshy nor inefficient monolithic socialist institutions that's really a secondary concern. If there were lower taxes or perhaps no income taxes then i would not be able to command such high wages anyway, maybe about 80-90% of what i currently earn.

My main objection is they are extremely bad for the economy, which needlessly hurts everyone. You see when you tax productivity, low and behold people are less productive. I would like to see all taxes on productivity... income, VAT (sales), corporate, national insurance (payroll) abolished and replaced with neutral taxes. Estimates are they produce a 15%-30% loss to the economy, and getting that loss back is good thing for everyone, rich and poor alike.

No matter how many times you repeat this my government does not help me (or anyone) out with the NHS. It doesn't screw the people of the UK as much as yours does but that's a false dichotomy. If you think holding a gun to somebody's head and forcing them to buy healthcare is a helpful act then you really need to check your moral compass.

This is not true. It comes from the taxes assessed to you by the folks of the UK. In legal terms, that money was never yours in the 1st place; you were only holding onto it until collection. So as I said, you haven't bought anything. What's that about playing dumb again?

Again, if it bothers you so, why don't you just move? I don't see anyone stopping you.

Which begs the question, if taxpayers aren't paying taxes then who exactly is?

You're not one of those imbeciles that thinks that taxes have absolutely no affect on the economy right? Like if the government raises taxes everything will magically be the same but the government will somehow have extra money to spend on things.

Let's make a deal: nobody will have to pay any taxes ever again. In exchange, if you want to use services or infrastucture payed for by those taxes, you will have to pay full "free market" price for using them. If you think that would be a sweet deal, you really haven't a single clue about economics. You would never have enough money for things like roads or schools, or a fire service, or what not.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 126):I don't see much point in resorting to emotional rhetoric. There seems to be a bit of an absence of literature about the pre NHS healthcare system in the UK although i do know a lot of it was charitable. Regardless what happened 70 odd years ago is hardly relevant to today. How many people had computers 70 years ago compared to today?

Take a look at the Singapore system. It's 2/3rds privately funded (more than the US system which is 55%) based on a system of compulsory savings with some degree of subsidy. The important point is that the patient always pay for a proportion of their healthcare (up to an annual limit). What are the results? Healthcare spending per head in Singapore is 61% of the UK (and that factors in PPP). On top of that Singapore achieves some of if not the best results out of all healthcare systems.

Now it's not a free market system obviously (and i would of course take it one step further) but it's a far more market based than the NHS and more so than the US system and it achieves outstanding results.

If the issue is that the poor won't be able to afford it, well then as i've already pointed even if you eat cheaply the annual cost of food is in the same ballpark to healthcare and we expect the poor to pay for their own food. So i don't see why we need to provide them with healthcare too. And that ignores the fact that lower taxation of the economy will improve the economy and their wages.

Just because you are young, healthy and earning good money doesn't mean that everybody is like you. Furthermore I'd even venture further in saying that your great life is partly possible because of these low skilled low wage workers that have to toil very hard in order to earn half what you earning.

If you are taking their "free" healthcare away, paid by people like you, you are going to introduce a bigger burden to their lives which already ain't that easy...

Now you got that thought process of a guy on the top of the pyramid. Great for you and hope it remains that way but what if it didn't? What if on top of losing your situation you were hit by some kind of horrible disease/complicated health problem. Not too sure how you would survive in this situation?

Charitable contribution? Hahah let me laugh you can see it in the US if Charity was such a wonderful way of helping the ill you wouldn't get that many people in the emergency units today suffering some horrible illness that cost 10x as much to cure as it would have 2 years ago. charity does not work not in the US, and even less in the UK.

I for one appreciate the NHS as well. It doesnt provide the personal care you obtain in some countries in Europe where universal care also exists, but also does not exclude millions of people like in the US. (Which is a due to flawed rules but also too much emphasis on private sector) And I speak from experience I've lived and consumed healthcare in the 3 systems...

Having undergone free surgery on the NHS which would have cost $12k privately, I have the highest respect for the NHS. Granted I had to wait 12 months on a waiting list (it wasn't life threatening surgery), but it's a great institution and makes me proud to be British.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 138): If you think that would be a sweet deal, you really haven't a single clue about economics. You would never have enough money for things like roads or schools, or a fire service, or what not.

Reading this baffling statement It doesn't sound like i'm the one who doesn't have a clue about economics tbh. If the average government spending is 10k per captita, and i currently pay 30k in taxes, why would i not be able to afford all of the services if everything was private?

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 138):The same thing I asked in reply #132.... and which you have convienently ignored. I guess sarcastic questions are okay when it suits only you? Just like everything else?

Have already answered in this thread. Just read it. There's even a clue in reply 133.

The amount of money they earn. Wages (or profits) are signals telling people where their efforts are most needed based on the collective demands of society.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 138):What you are advocating is a system where YOU get to decide who pays for what, which is a dictatorship.

No, i'm advocating a system where individuals get to decide what gets paid for and not the mob (electorate).

Quoting Vinniewinnie (Reply 139):Just because you are young, healthy and earning good money doesn't mean that everybody is like you. Furthermore I'd even venture further in saying that your great life is partly possible because of these low skilled low wage workers that have to toil very hard in order to earn half what you earning.

If you are taking their "free" healthcare away, paid by people like you, you are going to introduce a bigger burden to their lives which already ain't that easy...

Now you got that thought process of a guy on the top of the pyramid. Great for you and hope it remains that way but what if it didn't? What if on top of losing your situation you were hit by some kind of horrible disease/complicated health problem. Not too sure how you would survive in this situation?

And i toil very hard creating software that people at the bottom of the pyramid benefit from immensely. You don't need the government running around being Robin Hood because the only way of getting to the top of the pyramid is usually by helping out people further down in the process and by doing that you just put people off. Consumers at the bottom ultimately pay for the taxes of the people at the top of the pyramid anyway, might as well give them something more cost effective.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 141):And i toil very hard creating software that people at the bottom of the pyramid benefit from immensely.

Very happy for you that you are helping those people because usually IT & software destroy jobs at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 141):You don't need the government running around being Robin Hood because the only way of getting to the top of the pyramid is usually by helping out people further down in the process and by doing that you just put people off.

That's a serenade we hear all the time which and time again has been proven to be wrong. The invisible hand, charity & equity are very theroretical concepts that do not work/exist in real life

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 141):Consumers at the bottom ultimately pay for the taxes of the people at the top of the pyramid anyway, might as well give them something more cost effective.

When u'r at the bottom u pay next to nothing in taxes. In terms of higher ups yes they evade taxes but they usually still pay more in tax in absolute terms. U'r adopting the playbook of conservatives in America: What's good for the rich is also good for the poor. Let me tell you that factually doesn't work. U can say claim that America is an imperfect system, it is still has more of a free for all approach than the UK. With the consequences that can be seen today on the ground and not only reading online on the Guardian for example!

Quoting Vinniewinnie (Reply 142):Very happy for you that you are helping those people because usually IT & software destroy jobs at the bottom of the hierarchy.

It's job neutral. Jobs might go but they're replaced with new jobs that weren't being done before. In the meantime society benefits from the efficiency gains that computers have introduced.

Quoting Vinniewinnie (Reply 142):That's a serenade we hear all the time which and time again has been proven to be wrong. The invisible hand, charity & equity are very theroretical concepts that do not work/exist in real life

That's not true actually, someone earning 6 (~minimum wage) pounds an hour working 40 hours a week will pay around £1300 in income tax/NI. You'll also pay 20% VAT on many things you buy. You're also partially paying corporation tax on many of the products you buy. You're also partially paying the taxes on the employees from the companies that sell you these products. Etc etc etc.

Quoting Vinniewinnie (Reply 142):U'r adopting the playbook of conservatives in America: What's good for the rich is also good for the poor. Let me tell you that factually doesn't work.

Nope, i oppose cronyism and corporate welfare as much as i oppose the welfare state. I want a level playing field.

Quoting Vinniewinnie (Reply 142):With the consequences that can be seen today on the ground and not only reading online on the Guardian for example!

Ahh this explains it. The Guardian is awful rag. In many ways as dangerous as the Daily Mail. To be avoided.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 126):I don't see much point in resorting to emotional rhetoric. There seems to be a bit of an absence of literature about the pre NHS healthcare system in the UK although i do know a lot of it was charitable. Regardless what happened 70 odd years ago is hardly relevant to today. How many people had computers 70 years ago compared to today?

It's not emotional rhetoric, it's my small window into understanding what life was like then. Those grandparents worked hard all their lives. Still, enough of their early life was blighted, by charges to even SEE a doctor being something they'd try to avoid.
There is info on the pre NHS system, it was composed of a mixed bag which included charities, it left vast gaps. The results were there for all to see. Most doctors chose to work in leafy, wealthier suburbs, as was their right. So areas with the most need not only had to pay to see a doctor, there was also a shortage of actual doctors.

Beyond the individual suffering, this also led to an less efficient work-force, remember heavy industry was prevalent then - for a start 95% of energy was coal all dug in the UK. Sickly, weakened people work less hard. Sickly kids not only missed education but as we now know, many illness damage educational development physically too. So the UK languished with a less well educated work-force compared with industrial competitors like Germany and the USA.
I would suggest that the latter is even more important today.

Though the NHS was implemented by Labour after they won in 1945 (on a platform that included provision on a social insurance system for health free at the point of use), it was devised by a Liberal who would have baulked at being called a socialist.
Lord Beveridge mapped out the platform for it, as well as other measures to banish what he called the evils of disease, want, indolence. It was a reaction to the huge damage done, not only to the health of individuals, of having no comprehensive health system, also to the toxic legacy to the country as a whole.

Many pre NHS hospitals, were run down, starved of investment, charities could never raise enough, individual benefactors could die or just choose not to fund them anymore.
Some of these charities did provide free care in their local areas, or charged a small amount to members of their syndicate, out of their wages.
However, these were usually also the most run down, ill equipped facilities.
Many not much more than a sanatorium, or given these circumstances a hospice - not for the terminally ill like today but by default due to lack of equipment, drugs etc.

This is how it was, this is why it changed. It did not work - unless you were well off.

There is also a reason why the Tories after 1951 pledged to keep and properly maintain the NHS, beyond it being a vote loser not to do so. Many of them, including in the Cabinet, were converted to the idea.
They put pure ideology to one side and thought pragmatically.
It was not the disaster some had warned of, the top brass of the BMA had also been wrong and exposed as people not, as they had claimed, 'working to get the best health care for all' but a very narrow and self interested group

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 125):If you must subsidise the poor though it's far wiser just to give them money for which they can spend on anything instead of giving them free health-care, that way the cost and utilisation of health-care doesn't bloat.

You would have to give a lot of money for anything serious. Your idea would also wipe out preventative medicine, starting with vaccinations. Not cost but media fuelled paranoia (with a heavy anti state bias), has just this year showed us what that leads to. The legacy of the whole MMR debacle.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 127):So far, all we've heard is a bunch of theory. Your sandwich is all bread, buddy.

I've not heard that one before! I'll save that one.
One British version is having 'all mouth but no trousers'.

Quoting GDB (Reply 144): So the UK languished with a less well educated work-force compared with industrial competitors like Germany and the USA.

That's odd because the US had private healthcare.

I know your thought process, you think that if the government didn't force people to buy healthcare nobody would buy it and we'd end up being sick all the time and unproductive. Perhaps i have a little more faith in individuals and a little less faith in government than most.

Quoting GDB (Reply 144):You would have to give a lot of money for anything serious.

No because you'd get insurance for catastrophic medical events. Just like you get insurance for your car in case you crash it.

The market wants to find the most cost efficient ways of doing things. If preventative care is cost effective it will be used. There's a lot of scope for innovation in the insurance industry provided there is good contract enforcement laws and loose regulations. Insurance companies could offer discounts to people who keep their body mass index to low levels so that they're less likely to get diabetes for example.